Skip to main content

Full text of "A history of the councils of the church : from the original documents"

See other formats



T.   &   T.   CLARK,    EDINBURGH. 





H    on 






AJ).  451  TO  A.D.  680. 


MX.  Boat.  LLJX,  D.CL, 

.  X.T. 


T.    &    T.    CLARK,    38    GEORGE    STR 

APR  1 5 


IT  must  be  confessed  that  students  of  the  Councils  of  the 
Church  experience  a  relaxation  of  interest  when  they  have 
passed  the  great  Council  of  Chalcedon.  Those,  however,  who 
persevere  in  their  studies  will  certainly  confess  that  they  are 
amply  rewarded  for  their  pains.  It  is  not  merely  that  the 
history  of  the  Church  is  continuous,  and  that  the  whole  can 
be  understood  only  as  we  understand  the  parts ;  but  there  is 
a  living  interest  in  the  questions  and  problems  which  were 
perpetually  coming  up  for  solution  in  the  Church ;  and  the 
principal  controversy  handled  in  the  present  volume,  that  of 
the  Three  Chapters,  is  full  of  instruction  in  many  ways. 

In  regard  to  the  translation,  it  may  be  remarked  that  no 
attempt  has  been  made  to  render  the  names  of  ancient  places 
and  persons  in  a  uniform  manner.  Such  an  attempt  would 
not  only  savour  of  pedantry,  but  would  also  be  inconvenient 
to  the  reader.  Those  forms  have  been  adopted  which  are 
generally  understood,  and,  for  the  sake  of  clearness,  sometimes 
two  forms  have  been  given. 

It  is  hoped  that  this  volume  will  be  found  to  be  as  accu- 
rate as  its  predecessors.  Every  care  has  been  taken  to  avoid 
mistakes.  If  any  remain,  the  Editor  will  be  grateful  for 
corrections.  He  must  add  that  his  special  thanks  are  due  to 
an  accomplished  friend  who  has  kindly  compiled  the  Index. 

A  fifth  volume  will  bring  the  work  to  the  close  of  the 
seventh  Council,  the  last  acknowledged  as  ecumenical  by  the 
whole  Church.  The  publication  of  this  final  volume  of  the 
English  translation  must  depend  upon  the  demand  for  that 
which  is  now  issued. 

W.  R  C. 

Advent,  1894. 




SEC.  209.  The  First  Decade  after  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  .  .  1 

,,  210.  Irish  Syuods  under  Patrick,  7 
,,  211.  Synods  in  Gaul,  Rome,  Spain,  etc.,  between  the  Years 

460  and  475,              ......  10 

,,  212.  Synods  at  Aries  on  the  Doctrine  of  Grace,  in  the  Years 

475-480, 20 

,,  213.  Synods  on  the  Affairs  of  the  Greek  and  Oriental  Churches,  .  24 

,,  214.  Religious  Conference  at  Carthage,  A.D.  484,  .  35 

,,  215.  Synod  in  the  Lateran  at  Rome,  A.D.  487  or  488,  .  .  38 
,,  216.  Synods  in  Persia  and  at  Constantinople,  .  .  .40 
,,  217.  The  two  Roman  Synods  under  Pope  Gelasius.  The  Gelasiau 

Decree  de  libris  recipiendis, .  ....  42 

,,  218.  The  last  Synods  of  the  Fifth  Century,  ...  47 

,,  219.  Belgium  Conference  in  the  Kingdom  of  Burgundy,  at  Lyons,  53 



SEC.  220.  The  Roman  Synods  under  Pope  Symmachus,  A.D.  501-504,     .        58 
,,     221.  Byzacene  Synod,  A.D.  504  or  507,         .  .  .  .75 

„     222.  Synod  at  Agde  (Agatha),  A.D.  506,      .  .  .          '  .        76 

,,     223.  Supposed  Synod  at  Toulouse,  Conciliabulum  at  Antioch,  A.D. 

507  and  508,  ......         86 

,,     224.  First  Synod  of  Orleans,  A.D.  511,          .  .  .  .87 

,,     225.  Oriental  Synods  on  the  Monophysite  Question,  .  .92 

,,     226.  Two  British  Synods,  A.D.  512  and  516,  ...         93 

,,     227.  Synod  at  Agaunum  or  S.  Moritz,  between  515  and  523,  .         94 

,,     228.  Synods  in  Illyria  and  Epirus,  and  at  Lyons,  in  the  Years 

515  and  516,  ......         98 




SEC.  229.  Synods  at  Tarragona,  A.D.  516,  and  at  Gerunda,  A.D.  517,  .  102 

,,  230.  Two  Gallican  Synods  between  514  and  51",  .  .  .  106 

,,  231.  Synod  at  Epaon,  in  Burgundy,  A.D.  517,  .  .  .  107 

,,  232.  Synod  at  Lyons,  A.D.  517,  .  .  .  .  .114 

,,  233.  Synods  at  Constantinople,  Jerusalem,  Tyre,  Syria,  Rome,  and 

Epirus,  in  connection  with  the  Monophysites,  A.D.  518-520,  116 

,,  234.  Synods  in  Wales  and  at  Tournay,  .  .  .  .123 

, ,  235.  Synodal  Letter  of  the  African  Bishops  banished  to  Sardinia 

from  the  Year  523,  ......       125 

,,  236.  Synods  at  Junca  and  Sufes  in  Africa,  ....       130 

,,  237.  Synods  at  Aries,  Lerida,  and  Valencia,  A.D.  524  (546),           .       131 

„  238.  Synod  at  Carthage,  A.D.  525,  .....       138 

,,  239.  Synod  at  Carpentras,  A.D.  527,            .             .            .             .143 

,,  240.  Synod  at  Dovin,  in  Armenia,  A.D.  527,            .             .             .       145 

,,  241.  Second  Synod  of  Toledo,  A.D.  527  or  531,        .             .            .148 

,,  242.  Second  Synod  at  Orange,  and  Synod  at  Valence,  A.D.  529,     .       152 

,,  243.  Second  Synod  at  Vaison,  A.D.  529,      ....       169 

,,  244.  Synods  at  Rome,  Larissa,  and  Constantinople,  A.D.  531,  .  171 

,,  245.  Religious  Conference  at  Constantinople,  A.D.  533,  and  the 

alleged  Roman  Synod  under  Pope  John  II.,  .  .  176 

,,  246.  Synod  at  Marseilles  on  account  of  Bishop  Contumeliosus, 

A.D.  533,       .  .  .  .  .  .  .181 

,,  247.  Second  Synod  at  Orleans,  A.D.  533,      ....       185 

,,  248.  Synod  at  Carthage,  A.D.  535,  .....       188 

,,  249.  Synod  at  Clermont,  in  Auvergne  (Concilium  Arvemense), 

A.D.  535,       .......       190 

,,  250.  Synods  at  Constantinople  and  Jerusalem,  A.D.  536,     .             .       192 

„  251.  Third  Synod  at  Orleans,  A.D.  538,        .            .             .             .204 

,,  252.  Synods  at  Barcelona  and  in  the  Province  of  Byzacene,             .       209 

,,  253.  Fourth  Synod  at  Orleans,  A.D.  541,      ....       210 

,,  254.  Synods  at  Antioch  and  Gaza,  A.D.  542,            .             .             .       215 

,,  255.  Edict  of  Justinian  against  Origen,         .....       217 

,,  256.  Synod  at  Constantinople  on  account  of  Origen,  A.D.  543,  .  221 

,,  257.  The  Fifteen  Anathematisms  on  Origen,  .  .  .  221 





SEC.  258.  Origin  of  the  Controversy  of  the  Three  Chapters,         .  .       229 

,,     259.  Pope  Vigilius  and  his  Judicatum  of  April  11,  548,      .  .       249 



SEC.  260.  Opposition  to  the  Judicatum,  .....  259 

,,     261.  The  Judicatum  is  withdrawn,  and  a  great  Synod  proposed,    .  265 

,,     262.  Synod  at  Mopsuestia,  A.D.  550,             ....  265 

,,     262s.The  African  Deputies,               .....  268 

,,     263.  Second  Imperial  Edict  against  the  Three  Chapters,     .             .  269 

,,     264.  Protest,  Persecution,  and  two  Flights  of  the  Pope,      .             .  278 

,,     265.  New  Negotiations  for  gaining  over  Pope  Vigilius,        .             .  283 
,,     266.  Vigilius  gives  and   recalls  his  Assent  to  the   holding  of  an 

(Ecumenical  Synod,               .....  286 



SEC.  267.  The  First  Session  and  the  Acts  of  the  Synod,  .             .             .  289 

,,     268.  Second  and  Third  Sessions  on  the  8th  and  9th  of  May,            .  302 

,,     269.  Fourth  Session  on  the  12th  or  13th  of  May,     .             .             .  305 

,,     270.   Fifth  Session  on  17th  May,       .....  307 

,,  271.  Sixth  Session  on  19th  May,  .....  312 
„  272.  The  Constitutum  of  Vigilius,  14th  May  553,  .  .  .316 

,,     273.  Seventh  Session,  26th  May,      .....  323 

,,     274.  Eighth  and  Last  Session,  2nd  June  553,           .             .            .  326 



SEC.  275.  Synod  at  Jerusalem,  A.D.  553.     The  Emperor  endeavours  to 

compel  the  recognition  of  the  Fifth  Synod,  .  .  .  343 

,,  276.  Pope  Vigilius  confirms  the  Fifth  Synod,  .  .  .  345 

,,  277.  Many  Westerns  refuse  to  recognise  the  Fifth  Synod,  .  .  351 
,,  278.  The  Schism  in  Upper  Italy.  .Tuscany  and  France  are  also 

against  the  Fifth  Synod,  .....  354 

,,  279.  Victories  of  the  Longobardi.  Partial  Union  of  the  Milanese,  356 

,,  280.  Attempts  at  Union  with  the  See  of  Grado,  .  .  .  357 
,,  281.  Gregory  the  Great  works  for  Union.  Synods  of  the 

Schismatics,               ......  358 

,,  282.  The  Union  of  the  Province  of  Milan  is  renewed  and 

extended,       .......  362 

,,  283.  End  of  the  Schism,  ......  363 







SEC.  284.  The  Frankish  Synods  about  the  middle  of  the  Sixth  Century,       366 

„  285.  The  Synods  between  the  Years  560  and  575,    .  .  .380 

,,  286.  The  Synods  between  the  Years  575  and  589,   .  .  .399 

,,  287.  Spain  becomes  Catholic  at  the  Third  Synod  of  Toledo,  A.  D.  589,       416 

,,  288.  The  last  Synods  of  the  Sixth  Century,  .  .  .       422 


BETWEEN   THE    YEARS    600    AND    680. 

SEC.  289.  Synods  between  the  Years  600  and  630,  .  .  .       430 

,,     290.  Synods  not  referring  to  Monothelitism,    between  A.D.   633 

and  680,       .......       449 

INDEX,       .........      493 




SEC.  209.   The  First  Decade  after  the  Council  of  Chalcedon. 

1VTO  Synod  of  great  importance  was  held  during  the  forty- 
-L'  nine  years  which  elapsed  between  the  close  of  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon  and  the  end  of  the  fifth  century, 
although  the  number  of  ecclesiastical  assemblies  held  during 
this  period  was  by  no  means  small.  It  was  natural  that  soon 
after  the  holding  of  the  fourth  (Ecumenical  Council  several 
provincial  Synods  should  assemble.  These  would  meet  for 
one  of  two  purposes,  either  to  give  their  solemn  assent  to  the 
decrees  of  the  Council,  or  else,  where  the  Monophysites  had 
the  upper  hand,  to  make  their  public  protest  against  them. 
The  ancient  Libellus  Synodicus l  mentions  several  small  Synods 
belonging  to  this  epoch,  which  were  held  at  Alexandria,  Con- 
stantinople, Eome,  and  Antioch ;  but  neither  the  exact  time 
of  their  assembling  is  given,  nor  the  subject  of  their  trans- 
actions.2 We  know  more  of  a  Gallican  Synod  which  was 
held  towards  the  end  of  the  year  451,  and  so  a  few  weeks 
after  the  close  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  at  Aries,  under 
the  presidency  of  Ravennius,  the  archbishop  of  that  diocese. 
This  Synod  gave  its  assent  in  the  most  forcible  terms  to  the 
Epistola  dogmatica  of  Leo.  The  synodal  letter  addressed  to 
the  Pope  is  No.  99  among  the  Letters  of  Leo  the  Great,  and 
his  answer  of  January  27,  452,  is  No.  102.3 

1  On  this  book  cf.  vol.  i.  p.  78. 
-  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  870  ;  Hardouin,  t.  v.  p.  1526. 
8  Leonis  Opp.  ed.  Bailer,  t.  i.  p.  1107  ;  also  in  Mansi,  t.  vi.  p.  161. 
IV.  I 


A  Council  was  held  at  Alexandria,  under  the  Patriarch 
Proterius,  about  the  same  time,  only  a  little  later  (A.D.  452), 
and  gave  its  assent  to  the  decrees  of  Chalcedon,  and  deposed 
Timothy  ^Elurus,1  who,  as  priest,  was  the  spiritual  head  of 
the  Egyptian  Monophysites,  as  well  as  four  or  five  bishops 
and  several  monks  among  his  followers.  We  do  not  possess 
the  Acts  of  this  assembly ;  but  they  are  referred  to  by  the 
Egyptian  bishops  in  a  communication  still  in  existence  which 
they  addressed,  several  years  afterwards,  to  the  Emperor  Leo.2 

Martene  and  Durandus  believed  that  they  had  discovered 
a  fragment  relating  to  a  Synod  held  about  this  time  at  Frejus. 
This  fragment,  which  is  reproduced  in  the  collection  of  Coleti,3 
belongs,  however,  as  Mansi 4  has  shown,  to  the  Synodal  Letter 
of  the  Concilium  Valentinum  (at  Valence)  of  the  year  374, 
which  we  have  already  mentioned  (vol.  i.  p.  288).  Mention 
has  also  been  made  (vol.  iii.  p.  167)  of  the  so-called  second 
Council  of  Aries,  which  some  have  assigned  to  the  year  452, 
but  which  probably  belongs  to  the  year  443.  Another 
Gallican  Synod  of  this  period  held  at  Narbonne  under  the 
presidency  of  Eusticus,  the  archbishop  of  that  place,  is 
ordinarily  assigned  to  the  year  452  ; 5  but  which  the  Ballerini 
have  more  accurately  assigned  to  the  year  458.6  The  occa- 
sion of  its  being  held  was  a  complaint  brought  by  two  priests, 
Sabinian  and  Leo,  against  several  persons,  apparently  of  dis- 
tinction, accusing  them  of  adultery.  In  order  to  examine 
into  the  matter,  Eusticus  assembled  his  suffragan  bishops  and 
other  eminent  persons  (honorati) ;  but  the  two  priests  lacked 
the  courage  to  follow  up  their  accusation,  and  Rusticus  there- 
fore, with  the  assent  of  his  Synod,  inquired  of  Pope  Leo  the 
Great  whether  they  were  to  be  punished  or  not.  He  also 
subjoined  a  further  series  of  questions  on  canon  law,  and 
indicated  his  wish  to  resign.  This  gave  occasion  to  the  Pope 
for  the  composition  of  his  167th  epistle,  in  which  he  solves 
the  canonical  difficulties  brought  before  him,  dissuades 
Eusticus  from  resigning,  and  in  regard  to  the  two  priests 

1  See  vol.  iii.  p.  450.  2  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  525  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  692. 

3  See  vol.  i.  p.  71.  4  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  871. 

5  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  898  ;  Walch,  Histor.  der  Kirchenvers.  S.  314. 

6  In  their  edition  of  the  works  of  Leo  the  Great,  t.  i.  p.  1414,  n.  8. 


gives  his  judgment  that,  as  their  complaints  had  been  made 
in  the  interests  of  chastity,  Rusticus  should  treat  them 
gently,  ne  didbolus,  qui  decepit  adulteros,  de  adulterii  eocultet 

To  the  same  year,  458,  belongs  that  Roman  Synod  of 
which  Pope  Leo  the  Great  speaks  in  his  166th  letter  to 
Bishop  Neo  of  Ravenna,  and  which  formerly  was  erroneously 
assigned  to  the  year  451  or  452.2  This  Synod  gave  decisions 
on  several  questions :  that  (1)  those  who  had  been  taken 
captive  in  childhood,  and  did  not  remember  whether  they  had 
been  baptized  or  not,  should  institute  as  careful  inquiries  as 
might  be  possible,  in  order  to  ascertain  the  fact.  Should 
these  inquiries  lead  to  no  result,  they  might  without  hesita- 
tion receive  holy  baptism.  (2)  Those,  on  the  contrary,  who 
had  been  baptized  by  heretics,  should  not  be  rebaptized,  but 
the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  should  be  imparted  to  them  by 
the  laying  on  of  hands  by  the  bishop.3 

In  the  year  453  the  epistle  of  Leo  to  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon  (see  vol.  iii.  p.  443)  was  read  at  a  new  Synod, 
probably  at  Constantinople ;  but  the  second  part  of  it,  con- 
taining the  protest  against  the  28th  canon  of  Chalcedon,  was 
nevertheless  kept  back.  This  we  learn  from  the  127th  letter 
of  Leo  to  Bishop  Julian  of  Cos.4 

In  the  same  year,  453,  on  the  4th  of  October,  the  elec- 
tion of  a  new  bishop,  Talasius,  for  Angers  (Andegavum)  in 
Gaul,  gave  occasion  for  the  holding  in  this  city  of  a  provincial 
Synod,  at  which  seven  bishops  were  present.  These  were 
Eustochius  of  Tours,  Leo  of  Bourges,  Victorius  of  Mans, 
Chariaton,  Rumorius,  Viventius  (the  sees  of  these  unknown), 
and  the  newly-elected  Talasius  of  Angers.  The  presidency 
properly  belonged  to  Bishop  Eustochius,  but  in  the  Acts,  Leo  of 
Bourges  is  named  primo  loco  ;  and  it  is  probable  that  the  latter 
— as  being  invited  from  another  province — was  requested,  as 

1  Leonis  Opp.  ed.  Bailer,  t.  i.  p.  1415  sq.  ;  Mausi,  t.  vi.  p.  397  sqq.,  and 
Sirmond,  Concilia  Gallice,  t.  i.  p.  Ill  sqq. 

2  By  Baluze  in  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  871.     Correctly  by  Bailer.  I.e.  pp.  1405  and 
1408,  Not.  21. 

3  We  learn  this  from  the  166th  letter  of  Leo  the  Great,  already  mentioned. 
Bailer.  I.e.  p.  1405  sqq.;  Mansi,  t.  vi.  p.  387. 

4  Bailer,  t.  i.  p.  1246  sqq. ;  Mansi,  t.  vi.  p.  266,  and  t.  vii.  p.  899. 


a  matter  of  courtesy,  to  assume  the  presidency.  They  drew 
up  twelve  canons,  which  are  preserved  in  all  the  collections  of 
Councils,1  and  contain  the  following  provisions : — 

1.  Clerics  must  not  appeal  to  the  secular  tribunals  with- 
out the  consent  of  their  bishops,  and  must  take  no  journey 
without  their  permission,  or  without    commendatory  letters 
from  them. 

2.  Deacons  must  honour  priests. 

3.  Every  act  of  violence  and  maiming  of  the  members  is 

4.  Clerics   must  avoid  familiarity   with  strange  women. 
If  they  are  themselves  unmarried,  they  must  for  attendants 
have  only  their  sisters  or  aunts  or  mothers.     Whoever  dis- 
regards this  prohibition,  shall  be  raised  to  no  higher  grade, 
and,  if  he  is  already  ordained  (i.e.  if  he  has  already  received 
an  ordo  major),  he  shall  not  discharge  his  sacred  functions. 
If  clerics  have  assisted  in  delivering  over  their  towns  to  the 
enemy,  or  in  their  being  taken  by  them,  they  shall  not  only 
be  excommunicated,  but  it  is  forbidden  to  others  to  eat  with 

5.  The  same  punishment  shall  be  inflicted  on  those  who 
abandon  a  course  of  penitence  already  begun ;  and  so  with 
women  who,  of  their  own  accord,  fall  away  from  a  state  of 
virginity  dedicated  to  God. 

6.  Any  one  who  marries  the  wife  of  another  during  his 
lifetime  shall  be  excommunicated. 

7.  Clerics  who  abandon  their  office,  and  take  service  in 
war,  shall  be  deposed  by  the  Church  which  they  abandoned. 

8.  Monks  who   travel   about  unnecessarily   shall,  unless 
they  amend,  be   rejected   from   communion  by   their  abbots 
and  by  priests. 

9.  Bishops  are  not  permitted  to  confer  higher  orders  upon 
the  clerics  of  other  dioceses. 

10.  Laymen  or  clerics  who  have  been  ordained  as  servers 

1  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  899  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  777  sqq. ;  Sirmond,  Concilia 
OallicE,  t.  i.  p.  116  sqq.  Cf.  on  this  Synod  also  Tillemont,  Mtmoires,  etc.  t. 
xvi.  p.  394. 

-  Instead  of  the  ordinary  text,  "Ut  a  violentia  et  crimine  perputationis 
abstineatur,'  Hardouin  preferred,  "  Ut  a  vinolentia  et  crimine  perpotationis," 
etc.  Perputatio=membri  amputetio.  Du  Cange,  Glossar.  s.h.v. 


at  the  altar  (deacons),  and  refuse  to  fulfil  their  office,  must 
be  punished.  Laymen  are  not  to  be  excommunicated  unless 
their  offence  is  proved.  (That  this  is  the  sense  of  the 
entirely  corrupt  text  of  the  second  half  of  our  canon,  appears 
from  the  heading  and  the  notes  of  Sirmond.1) 

11.  Only  one  who  has  been  married  but  once,  and  with  a 
virgin,  can  be  made  a  deacon  or  a  priest. 

12.  All   who    confess  their   fault   shall   be   admitted   to 
penance,  and  shall  receive   absolution  in  proportion  to  the 
greatness  of  their  offence,  and  according  to  the  judgment  of 
the  bishop. 

The  same  which  is  contained  in  the  first  canon  of  this 
Synod  of  Angers  was  ordained  about  the  same  time  by 
another  Gallican  Synod  in  the  province  of  Tours,  in  a  brief 
synodal  letter  which  still  exists.2  There  were  present  the 
bishops  already  named,  Eustochius,  Leo,  and  Victorius,  and 
besides  these  perhaps  some  others,  as  is  indicated  in  the 
Codex  Remensis,  which  adds  to  the  subscription  of  the  synodal 
epistle  these  words :  el  ceteri  qui  adfuerunt  episcopi  sub- 

Another  Gallican  Synod  was  held  in  the  sacristy  of  the 
church  of  Aries  on  New  Year's  Day,  probably  in  the  year 
455  (Concilium  Arelatense,  iii.).  This  Synod  was  occasioned 
by  a  quarrel  which  had  broken  out  between  the  convent  of 
Le'rins,4  at  the  head  of  which  stood  Abbot  Faustus,  after- 
wards, as  leader  of  the  semi-Pelagians,  the  celebrated  bishop 
of  Riez,  and  Bishop  Theodore  of  Frejus,  in  whose  diocese 
Lerins  was  situated.  The  question  arose  with  reference  to 
their  mutual  rights,  and  the  contention  had  become  so  violent 
that  it  had  excited  great  animosity.  To  put  an  end  to  the 
dispute,  the  Metropolitan,  Ravennius  of  Aries,  summoned 
this  Synod,  by  means  of  which  peace  was  brought  about,  and 

1  Mansi,  t.  vii.  pp.  899  and  903. 

2  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  906  ;  Gallia  Christ,  t.  ii.  p.  7  ;  Sirmond,  Condi.  Gallice, 
t.  L  p.  119. 

8  Mansi,  I.e. 

4  On  this  celebrated  convent  on  the  island  of  Lerins,  near  the  French  coast, 
cf.  my  treatise  on  Vincentius  Lirinensis  in  the  Tubingen  Quartalschr.  1854, 
S.  83,  and  in  the  Beitrdge  zur  Kirchengeschichtc,  etc.,  Tubingen  1864, 
Bd.  i.  S.  145  ff. 


Bishop  Theodore  was  counselled  to  forget  and  forgive  the 
injuries  which  he  had  received  at  the  hands  of  Abbot  Faustus. 
With  regard  to  his  rights  over  Le'rins,  he  was  to  retain  all 
that  was  possessed  by  his  predecessor  Leontius,  namely, 
that  all  clerics  and  servers  at  the  altar  should  be  ordained 
by  him  alone,  that  the  chrism  should  be  consecrated  only  by 
him,  the  newly-baptized  confirmed  by  him  alone,  and  that 
strange  clerics  from  the  convent  should  not  be  received  into 
communion,  or  admitted  to  any  office,  without  his  permission. 
The  crowd  of  laymen  in  the  convent,  that  is,  those  of  the 
monks  who  were  not  clerics,  were  to  be  left  to  the  care  of  the 
abbot,  and  the  bishop  was  to  assume  no  authority  over  them, 
and,  particularly,  was  not  to  confer  orders  upon  any  of  them 
without  the  consent  of  the  abbot.1 

We  have  already  seen  (vol.  iii.  p.  294)  from  the  Codex 
Encydicus  that  a  good  many  provincial  Synods  were  held  in 
the  East,  in  the  year  458,  for  the  ratification  of  the  Council 
of  Chalcedon.  To  the  year  450,  however,  belongs  the  great 
Synod  of  Constantinople,  which  was  held  by  the  patriarch  of 
that  place,  Gennadius,  with  eighty  other  bishops.  Of  this 
Synod  we  possess  a  synodal  letter  subscribed  by  the  collective 
members.  In  the  older  editions  of  the  Councils  these  sub- 
scriptions are  wanting;  but  after  they  had  been  discovered  by 
Peter  Lambecius  in  an  ancient  codex,  they  were  transferred 
into  the  Nova  collectio  conciliorum  of  Baluze,  p.  1452,  and 
from  thence  into  the  collections  of  Hardouin  (ii.  p.  783  sqq.) 
and  Mansi  (vii.  p.  915  sqq.).  From  these  subscriptions  we 
also  learn  the  correct  number  of  the  bishops  who  were 
present  ;  whilst  in  the  earlier  editions  the  number  was  given 
as  seventy-three  instead  of  eighty.  We  also  gain  assistance 
from  these  subscriptions  for  the  determination  of  the  time, 
since  several  of  the  subscribing  bishops  were  Egyptians  who 
had  been  banished  by  Timothy  ^Elurus.  They  remained  in 
Constantinople,  and  in  the  year  457  subscribed  a  petition 
to  the  Emperor  Leo  (Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  691  ;  Mansi,  t.  vii. 
p.  530).  The  synodal  letter  in  question,  directed  to  all 
metropolitans,  and  to  the  Ildiras  'PtafjLrjs  in  specie,  forbids 

1  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  907  sqq.  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  779  ;  Sirraond,  Condi.  Gallic? 
t.  i.  p.  120.     Cf.  Remi  Ceillier,  t.  xv.  p.  605. 


the  purchase  and  sale  of  holy  orders,  appealing  to  the  well- 
known  saying  of  the  Lord :  Gratis  accepistis,  gratis  date 
(Matt.  x.  8),  and  repeating  the  2nd  canon  "  of  the  holy, 
great,  and  (Ecumenical  Synod  of  Chalcedon."  Occasion  for 
the  renewal  of  this  prohibition  had  been  given  by  certain 
occurrences  in  Galatia,  and  the  Synod  therefore  decided  that 
buyers  and  sellers  of  holy  orders  alike,  whether  clergymen 
or  laymen,  whether  they  were  convicted  or  not,  should  be 
deposed  from  the  ministry  of  the  Church,  and  smitten  with 
anathema.  In  conclusion,  all  metropolitans  are  requested  to 
make  this  letter  known  in  their  provinces.1 

SEC.  210.  Irish  Synods  under  Patrick. 

Two  Synods,  held  by  S.  Patrick  and  his  suffragan  bishops 
in  Ireland,  must  be  placed  shortly  after  the  middle  of  the 
fifth  century.2  According  to  ancient  indications,  the  one 
must  have  been  held  between  the  years  450  and  456  ;  for 
the  other,  on  the  contrary,  we  have  no  indication  of  the  date, 
and  the  celebrated  Irish  scholar,  Thomas  Moore,  in  his  history 
of  his  native  land,  assigns  both  to  the  last  years  of  S.  Patrick,3 
with  the  remark  that  some  of  the  canons  ascribed  to  these 
Councils  have  been  recognised  as  genuine  by  the  most  distin- 
guished critics,  and  from  their  contents  must  have  belonged  to 
a  period  when  heathenism  in  Ireland  was  not  yet  extinct 
(e.g.  canon  8  of  the  first  Synod),  but  that  others  must  be 
regarded  as  of  considerably  later  origin.4  The  canons  of 
these  two  Irish  Synods,  together  with  some  other  ecclesiastical 
ordinances  ascribed  to  S.  Patrick,  are  printed  in  Mansi,  t.  vi. 
pp.  5 1 3-5  3  8 ;  Hardouin,  t.  i.  p.  1 7  9  0  sqq.,  and  Bruns,  Bibliotheca 
eccles.  vol.  i.  pt.  iL  p.  301  sqq.  In  some  of  these  the  text  is  so 
defective  as  to  be  unintelligible,  many  words  having  fallen  out 
by  the  injuria  temporum.  In  others  it  is  difficult  to  discover 
the  real  meaning  even  where  the  text  is  accurate.  The 

1  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  911  sqq.;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  781  sqq. 
-  The  subject  of  S.   Patrick  is  treated  at  length  by  Bishop  Greith  in  his 
work,  Geschicfite  der  altirischen  Kirche,  1867,  S.  95-156. 

3  According  to  some,  S.  Patrick  died  in  the  year  465  ;  according  to  others, 
iu  the  year  493.     Cf.  Greith,  I.e.  S.  137. 

4  Thomas  Moore,  History  of  Ireland,  vol.  i. 


first  Synod  had  thirty-four,  the  second  thirty-one  of  these 
canons,  and  they  refer  to  very  various  points  of  ecclesias- 
tical discipline.  The  most  important  of  those  which  are 
still  intelligible  are — 

i.  Of  the  First  Synod. 

Can.  4.  Prohibition  of  derici  vagi. 

6.  Every   cleric   must  wear  a  tunic,  and   must  not  go 
without  it.     His  hair  must  be  shaved  according  to  the  Roman 
fashion,  and  his  wife  must  be  veiled  when  she  goes  out  of 

7.  Every  cleric  must  be  present  at  matins  and  vespers. 

8.  If  a  cleric  becomes  security  for  a  heathen,  he  must,  in 
case  of  liability,  pay  for  him. 

9.  A  monk   and   a  virgin  must  not  lodge  in   the  same 
house,  nor  travel  in  the  same  carriage,  nor  have  much  con- 
versation with  each  other. 

10.  Whoever  becomes  negligent  in  the  recitation  of  the 
psalms,  and  allows  his  hair  to  grow,  shall  be  excommunicated. 

11.  Whoever   receives   an    excommunicated    cleric,   falls 
himself  under  sentence  of  excommunication. 

12.  No  alms  shall  be  received  from  an  excommunicated 

1 3.  The  Church  must  receive  no  alms  from  a  heathen. 

14.  Whoever  kills,   or  is   guilty   of    unchastity,  or  has 
recourse  to  a  fortune-teller,  is  liable  to  penance  for  a  year. 

15.  Whoever  steals  must  restore  the  stolen  property,  and 
do  penance  for  twenty-one  days  on  bread  and  water. 

16.  On  sorcery. 

17.  A  virgin  vowed  to  God  must  not  marry. 

18.  An    excommunicated    person    must    not    enter    the 

19.  If  a  Christian  woman  leaves  her  husband  and  marries 
another,  she  is  thereby  excommunicated. 

23.  The  sacrifice  must  not  be  offered  in  a  church  which 
is  not  yet  consecrated. 

28.  A  suspended  cleric  (qui  excommunionis  fuerit)  must 
not  join  in  common  prayer  with  his  brethren  (colleagues).1 
1  Of.  Kellner,  Das  Buss-und  Strafverfahren  gegen  Cleriker,  Trier  1863,  S.  62. 


31.  A  cleric  who  kills  another  (in  a  quarrel)  is  thereby 

32.  A  cleric  must  not  assist  a  prisoner  to  escape ;  but  he 
may  purchase  his  release. 

33.  Clerics    who    come    from    Britain    without    epistolce 
formatce  shall  not  discharge  any  sacred  function  in  Ireland. 

34.  A  deacon  (monk)  who  goes  into  another  parish  with- 
out a  commendatory  letter  from  his  abbot,  shall  not  discharge 
any  sacred  function,  and  must  be  punished. 

iL   The  Canons  of  the  Second  Synod 

have  a  style  quite  different  from  those  of  the  first,  are  not  so 
simple,  copiously  quote  scriptural  phrases,  have  a  more  ornate, 
ambiguous  diction,  and  in  many  respects  betray  a  later  date. 
They  are  also  often  difficult  to  understand.  The  following 
are  worthy  of  special  notice : — 

Can.  10.  Whoever  has  fallen  in  an  office,  shall  be 
restored  without  the  office.  He  may  retain  the  title,  but  not 
the  function. 

12.  If  a  man  has  not  deserved,  while  alive,  that  the 
sacrifice  should  be  offered  for  him,  of  what  service  can  it 
be  to  him  after  his  death  ?  Cast  not  that  which  is  holy  to 

16.  He  who  has  not  been,  in  accordance  with  the  apos- 
tolic command,  appointed  bishop  by  another  bishop,  must  be 
condemned  and  degraded  to  a  place  among  the  laity.1 

19.  Baptism  shall  be  administered  at  Easter,  Whitsun- 
tide, and  Epiphany. 

22.  The  holy  communion  must  be  received  after  con- 
fession, which  must  be  made  specially  before  Easter.  One 
who  does  not  then  communicate  is  no  believer. 

26.  An  adulteress  must  return  to  her  first  husband. 

27.  A  daughter  must  be  obedient  to  her  father;  but  the 
father  must  also  have  regard  to  the  wish  of  his  daughter  (in 
regard  to  her  betrothal). 

28.  A  second  betrothal  does  not  annul  the  first. 

1  This  is  the  meaning  of  the  text  according  to  the  punctuation  of  Bruns. 
According  to  that  of  Mansi,  on  the  contrary,  it  would  read  :  "  He  who  has  not 
been  appointed  bishop,  must  be  condemned,  etc.,  by  another  bishop." 


29.  Marriages  are  forbidden  in  the  four  (first)  degrees  of 

30.  Every  fiftieth  year  is  a  jubilee. 

31.  All  sins  are  blotted  out  by  baptism.     If,  however,  a 
heathen  was  a  Christian  in  faith  some  time  before  his  baptism, 
and  yet  fell  into  sin,  he  must  also  do  penance  as  a  Christian.1 
Mansi  has  some  further  canons,  which  are  ascribed  to  S.  Patrick, 
without,  however,  asserting  that  they  were  passed  by  a  Synod. 

SEC.   211.  Synods  in  Gaul,  Rome,  Spain,  etc.,  between  the 
Years  460  and  475. 

The  festival  of  St.  Martin,  called  Eeceptio  Domni  Martini, 
i.e.  Keception  of  S.  Martin  into  heaven,  gave  occasion  for  the 
holding  of  a  Synod  of  no  slight  interest  at  Tours.  In  order  to 
celebrate  this  festival  worthily  on  the  llth  of  November,  nine 
neighbouring  Gallican  bishops,  some  of  them  from  other  pro- 
vinces, and  even  some  metropolitans  among  them,  had  met  at 
Tours ;  and  with  these  a  Synod  was  held  by  Archbishop 
Perpetuus  of  Tours,  who  had,  about  two  months  earlier, 
ascended  the  throne  of  S.  Martin.  This  Synod  was  held  on 
the  14th  or  18th  of  November  461,  and  passed  thirteen 
canons  renewing  some  earlier  decrees : — 

1.  Priests  and  Levites  are  exhorted  to  perpetual  chastity, 
because  they  may  at  any  moment  be  summoned  to  the  dis- 
charge of  a  sacred  function  (sacrifice,  baptism,  etc.). 

2.  The  ancient  rule,  that  priests  and  Levites  who  continue 
in  the  state  of  marriage  are  to  be  excluded  from  communion, 
shall  be  softened  to  this  extent,  that  such  clerics  shall  no 
longer  be  eligible  to  a  higher  grade,  and  shall  not  be  permitted 
to  offer  the  holy  sacrifice  or  to  assist  (as  Levites).     The  com- 
munion, however,  is  to  be  given  to  them.     Drunkenness  among 
the  clergy  must  also  be  punished. 

3.  Clerics  must  have  no  intercourse  with  strange  women, 
on  penalty  of  exclusion  from  the  communion. 

4.  Clerics  who  venture  to  marry  must  not  marry  widows. 
Whoever  does  so  must  have  the  lowest  place  in  clerical  service. 

1  Mansi,  t.  vi.  pp.  519-522,  and  t.  vii.  p.  1187 sqq.    The  latter  are  taken  from 
Wilkins'  Concil.  Britann.  t.  i. 


5.  A  cleric  who  leaves  his  office  and  engages  in  lay  work 
or  in  war  must  be  excommunicated. 

6.  Anyone    who   has    (carnal)  intercourse    with    virgins 
dedicated  to  God,  or  leaves  the  monastic  state,  must  in  either 
case  be  excommunicated. 

7.  No  intercourse  whatever  must  be  held  with  murderers 
until  they  have  atoned  for  their  crime  by  confession  and  penance. 

8.  Anyone  who,  after  taking  the  vow  of  penance  (pceni- 
tentia  =  wtum  continentice),  does,  like  the  dog  returning  to  his 
vomit,  go  back  to  worldly  pleasures,  must  be  excluded  from 
the  communion  of  the  Church,  or  from  intercourse  with  the 
faithful,  so  that  he  may  the  more  easily  be  reformed.     Cf. 
Kober,  Kircheribann,  Tub.  1863,  S.  58  and  379. 

9.  A  bishop  who  intrudes  into  the  diocese  of  another, 
must  be  shut  out  from  the  communion  of  all  his  brethren. 

10.  Unlawful   ordinations  are  inoperative,1  unless  satis- 
faction is  made  for  them  (to  the  bishop  whose  diocese  has 
been  invaded). 

11.  A  cleric  who  leaves  his  church  without  permission 
of  his  bishop,  and  resorts  to  another  place,  must  be  shut  out 
from  communion. 

12.  Clerics  are  not  allowed  to  travel  in  other  provinces  or 
cities  without  the  permission  of  their  Sacerdotes  (bishops). 

13.  Clerics  who  engage  in  business  must  make  no  profit 
by  it  (or  take  no  interest :  usuras  ne  accipiant). 

These  thirteen  canons  are  subscribed  by  Perpetuus  of 
Tours,  Victorius  of  Mans,  Leo  of  Bourges,  Eusebius  of  Nantes, 
Amandinus  of  Chalons,  Germanus  of  Eouen,  Athenius  of 
Kennes,  Mansuetus,  bis.hop  of  the  Britons  (probably  Bretons, 
Britanny),  and  Talasius,  bishop  of  Angers.  A  tenth  bishop 
of  the  name  of  Verandus,  whose  see  is  not  mentioned,  being 
blind,  was  represented  by  the  signature  of  his  presbyter, 

In  the  following  year,  462,  Pope  Hilarius  held  a  Roman 

1  By  i«  irrttum  devocamus  (sc.  ordinationes  illicilas)  is  not  meant  that  they 
are  invalid  in  the  modern  sense,  but  inoperative  through  suspension.      Cf. 
Hergenrb'ther,  Photius,  etc.,  Bd.  ii.  S.  325. 

2  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  943  sqq.  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  793  sqq.  ;  Sirmond,  Condi. 
Gallice,  t.  i.  p.  123  sqq.    Cf.  Remi  Ceillier,  I.e.  p.  607 ;  Tillemont,  t.  xvi.  pp.  399 
and  772. 


Synod.  Archbishop  Eusticus  of  Narbonne,  mentioned  before 
(p.  580),  had  consecrated  his  archdeacon,  Hermes,  to  be 
bishop  of  Bdziers ;  and  when  this  city  did  not  accept  him,  he 
recommended  him  as  his  own  successor  in  the  see  of  Nar- 
bonne. As  a  matter  of  fact,  Hermes  succeeded  to  this  see ; 
but  Prince  Frederick,  the  brother  of  Theoderic,  king  of  the 
Goths,  and  others  complained  of  the  matter  at  Eome,  and 
Pope  Hilarius,  in  consequence,  in  November  462,  requested 
Archbishop  Leontius  of  Aries,  as  primate  of  Gaul,  to  furnish 
him  with  information  on  the  subject.  His  letter  to  Leontius 
(Ep.  7)  is  in  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  933.  But  Bishop  Faustus  of 
Eiez  (see  above,  p.  583)  and  Auxanius  of  Aix,  bishops  of  the 
province,  were  already  on  their  way  to  Eome,  as  representa- 
tives of  their  colleagues,  in  order  to  give  the  Pope  full 
information  by  word  of  mouth;  and,  after  their  arrival, 
Hilarius,  on  the  anniversary  of  his  ordination,  November  19, 
462,  held  in  Eome  a  largely-attended  Synod,  consisting  of 
bishops  from  various  provinces,  who  confirmed  Hermes  in  the 
bishopric  of  Narbonne,  but  withdrew  from  him  the  metro- 
political  right  of  ordaining  other  bishops,  and  assigned  this 
right,  during  the  lifetime  of  Hermes,  to  the  senior  suffragan 
bishop  of  the  province.  The  Synod  here  evidently  adopted  a 
middle  course.  The  ancient  canons  had  plainly  declared  as 
invalid  the  appointment  by  a  bishop  of  his  own  successor  (see 
vol.  i.  p.  488,  vol.  ii.  p.  73);  but  this  severe  punishment 
was  not  here  in  place,  because  Eusticus  of  Narbonne  had  not 
appointed  Hermes  his  successor,  but  had  only  recommended 
him.  On  the  other  side,  it  was  demanded  by  the  interests  of 
free  election  that  even  such  recommendations  should  not  go 
uncensured ;  and  therefore  the  Synod  felt  bound  to  pronounce 
a  decree  of  punishment  upon  Hermes.  It  is  probable  that  the 
same  Synod  promulgated  also  those  further  ordinances  which 
were  given  by  Pope  Hilarius  in  the  letter  in  which  he  informed 
the  Gallican  bishops  of  the  decree  in  the  matter  of  Hermes.1 
These  ordinances  required  that  great  Councils  should  be  held 
annually  from  different  provinces  under  the  presidency  of  the 
archbishop  of  Aries  and  at  his  invitation,  but  that  the  most 

1  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  943  sq.  ;  Sirmond,  Condi.  Gallic,  t.  i.  p.  129  sq.     Cf. 
Remi  Ceillier,  I.e.  p.  614. 


difficult  cases  should  be  carried  to  Eome.  They  further 
decreed  that  no  bishop  should  travel  in  a  foreign  ecclesiastical 
province  without  a  letter  from  his  metropolitan ;  that  no  one 
should  receive  a  strange  cleric  without  a  testimonial  from  his 
bishop,  and  that  no  bishop  should  alienate  any  Church  pro- 
perty without  the  previous  knowledge  of  the  Synod. 

If  Pope  Hilarius  had  in  this  case  decided  a  Gallican 
question  in  a  Eoman  Synod,  it  was  not  long  afterwards  that 
he  recommended  that  another  controversy  which  had  arisen  in 
Gaul,  and  had  been  brought  before  him,  should  be  examined 
at  a  Gallican  Synod.  So  early  as  the  year  450,  Pope  Leo 
the  Great  had  divided  the  province  of  Vienne,  so  that  only 
Valence,  Tarantaise,  Geneva,  and  Grenoble  remained  in 
Vienne,  whilst  the  remaining  bishops  were  to  belong  to  the 
metropolis  of  Aries.1  Without  regard  to  this,  Archbishop 
Mamertus  of  Vienne,  the  same  who  introduced  the  Eogation 
processions,  consecrated  a  bishop  for  the  city  of  Die,  which, 
in  accordance  with  the  ordinance  of  Leo,  belonged  to  Aries, 
and  this  notwithstanding  the  protest  of  the  inhabitants  of  the 
city.  On  the  complaint  of  the  Burgundian  King  Gundiac,  to 
whom  Die  and  Vienne  belonged,  Pope  Hilarius,  on  the  10th 
of  October  463,  gave  commission  to  Archbishop  Leontius  of 
Aries  to  summon  a  great  Council  out  of  various  provinces  for 
the  examination  of  this  question,  and  to  inform  him  of  the 
result  at  Kome.2  At  the  same  time  he  despatched  a  circular 
on  the  subject  to  the  bishops  of  the  provinces  of  Vienne, 
Lyons,  and  Narbonne  i.  and  ii.3 

In  compliance  with  the  papal  instructions,  Leontius  im- 
mediately assembled  a  Synod  (certainly  at  Aries  itself) ;  and 
the  Synod  despatched  one  of  its  members,  Bishop  Antonius, 
to  Rome,  in  order  that  the  Pope  might  have  more  accurate 
intelligence.  The  Acts  of  this  Synod  are  completely  lost,  and 
all  that  we  know  of  it  comes  from  the  answer  which  the  Pope 
sent  to  the  twenty  (with  Antonius  twenty-one)  bishops  who 
had  come  together  (Feb.  24,  464).  In  this  letter  he  says 

1  Leonis  JEp.  66,  ad  episcop.  Metrop.  ArelaJt.  ed.  Bailer,  t.  i.  p.  988  sq. ;  also 
in  Mansi,  t.  vi.  p.  76.     Of.  Wiltsch,  Kirchl.  Statistic,  Bd.  i.  S.  98. 
8  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  936  ;  Sirmond,  I.e.  p.  131. 
3  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  937 ;  Sirmond,  I.e.  p.  134. 


— That  it  has  already  been  decreed  by  the  imperial  laws,  that 
the  decisions  which  the  papal  see  thought  necessary  for  the 
bounding  of  dioceses,  must  be  received  with  reverence  and 
accurately  observed,1  that  therefore  Mamertus  of  Vienne  and 
the  bishop  of  Die,  ordained  by  him,  had  deserved  to  be 
deposed,  but  that  the  Pope  desired  to  show  clemency,  and 
therefore  he  commissioned  Bishop  Veranus  (one  of  the 
twenty),  as  papal  legate,  to  explain  to  Mamertus  that, 
unless  he  recognised  his  proper  place  and  submitted  him- 
self to  the  judgment  of  Leo  in  regard  to  the  boundaries  of 
his  province,  he  would  be  deprived  of  the  four  suffragans  who 
still  remained  to  him.  The  illegally  appointed  bishop  of  Die, 
however,  was  to  receive  further  confirmation  from  Leontius  of 
Aries,  and  thus  be  made  a  regular  bishop.2 

Soon  afterwards  Pope  Hilarius  had  occasion  to  intervene 
also  in  the  affairs  of  the  Spanish  Church.  The  bishops  of 
Tarragona,  who  had  assembled  at  a  Synod  in  the  year  464, 
with  their  archbishop,  Ascanius  of  Tarragona,  at  their  head, 
had  appealed  to  Eome  for  two  matters  :  one,  because  Bishop 
Silvanus  of  Calahorra  of  the  same  ecclesiastical  province  had 
arbitrarily  ordained  several  bishops,  and  even  had  consecrated 
a  priest  who  belonged  to  another  diocese,  making  him  a 
bishop  by  violence  in  opposition  to  his  will.  The  Pope  was 
requested  to  decide  what  was  to  be  done  with  Silvanus  and 
the  bishops  consecrated  by  him.3 

The  second  case  had  reference  to  the  Church  of  Barcelona. 
Bishop  Fundinarius  of  Barcelona,  when  on  the  point  of  death, 
had  designated  as  one  whom  he  wished  to  be  his  successor, 
Irenseus,  whom  he  had  previously  appointed  as  bishop  (chor- 
episcopus)  over  another  part  of  his  diocese ;  and  the  provincial 
Synod  at  Tarragona  had  confirmed  this  designation.  The 

1  Bower  (Hist,  of  the  Popes,  vol.  iii.)  and  Walch  (Gesch.  der  Pdpste,  S.  109) 
lay  great  stress  upon  the  fact  that  the  Pope  himself  here  allows  that  the  right 
to  determine  the  boundaries  of  dioceses  and  ecclesiastical  provinces  was  derived 
from  the  Emperor.     But  Hilary  does  not  say  this,  but  only  that  even  the 
Emperors  had  recognised  this  papal  right,  and  had  enforced  the  observance  of 
the  papal  ordinances  on  this  subject. 

2  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  938  sqq.;  Sirmond,  I.e.  p.  132  sqq. 

3  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  924  sq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  787  ;  Gams,  Kirchengesch.  v. 
Spanien,  Bd.  ii.  Thl.  i.  S.  430  ff. 


bishops  of  the  Synod  wished  for  the  expression  of  the  assent 
of  Rome  also  to  this  arrangement,  and  requested  this  in 
writing,  with  the  remark  that  similar  cases  had  often  occurred 
with  them.1 

Pope  Hilarius,  in  November  465,  again  on  the  anniversary 
of  his  consecration,  held  a  larger  Synod,  consisting  of  forty- 
eight  bishops,  in  the  basilica  of  Santa  Maggiore,  called  also  the 
Liberian  basilica,  in  Rome.  This  Synod  drew  up  five  canons : — 

1.  In  regard  to  ordinations,  the  prescriptions  of  the  divine 
law  and  the  definitions  of  Nicaea  must  be  strictly  observed. 

2.  Whoever  marries  one  who  is  not  a  virgin,  or  marries  a 
second  time,  must  not  be  raised  to  the  higher  grades  of  the 

3.  The  same  rule  shall  apply  to  the  unlearned,  the  maimed, 
and  those  who  have  done  penance.     Whoever  has  ordained 
such,  shall  declare  his  act  undone  (factum  suum  dissolved). 

4.  Every  bishop    must    condemn    anything    uncanonical 
done  by  himself  or  his  predecessors  ;  in  which  case  he  shall 
be    treated    with    clemency.     Whoever,  on  the  contrary,  is 
obstinate,  and  refuses  to  undo  what  is  wrong,  must  be  punished. 
All  present  gave,  by  acclamation,  loud  approval  to  this  canon. 

5.  Many  believe    that    in    Spain  a  bishopric   might    be 
inherited    like    any    other    office.       Many    bishops    of    that 
country,  when  on  the  point  of   death,  designate  their  suc- 
cessors, so  that  no  elections  take  place.     This  is  not  allowed. 
Compare  above,  p.  12. 

For  the  more  accurate  information  of  the  members  of  the 
Synod,  Hilarius  had  the  two  letters  read  at  once,  which  he 
had  received  from  the  bishops  of  the  ecclesiastical  province  of 
Tarragona  on  the  two  matters  under  dispute,  namely — (1) 
the  succession  to  the  see  of  Barcelona,  and  (2)  the  irregular 
ordinations  which  Silvanus  had  held.  The  bishops  present 
gave  their  judgment,  partly  by  individual  votes,  and  partly 
by  general  acclamation,  to  the  effect  that  neither  of  these 
things  should  have  occurred,  and  expressed  their  full  ap- 
proval of  the  canons  which  had  been  drawn  up.2 

1  Mansi,  t.  vii.  pp.  962  and  926 ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  801  ;  Gams,  I.e. 
-  Mansi,  t.  vii.  pp.  959-964;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  pp.  799-802  ;  Cf.  Remi  Ceillier, 
I.e.  p.  616  ;  Tillemont,  Aftmoires,  etc.  t.  xvi.  pp.  46  and  737. 


In  consequence  of  the  decree  of  this  Roman  Synod, 
Hilarius  sent  a  letter  to  the  bishops  of  the  province  of  Tarra- 
gona, in  which  the  following  three  leading  propositions  were 
laid  down  :— 

1.  That  Ascanius  was  not  for  the  future  to  ordain  any 
bishop  in  the  province  without  the  assent  of  the  metropolitan. 

2.  That  Irenseus  must  at  once  give  up  the  bishopric  of 
Barcelona,  and  the  clergy  there    elect    another    bishop.     If 
Irenseus    refused,  he    should    lose    also  the  other    bishopric 
which  he  held. 

3.  That  the  bishops   irregularly  appointed    by  Silvanus 
must  be  deposed,  together  with  their  consecrator  ;  yet  that  the 
Pope  would,  in  his  clemency,  recognise  them,  on  condition 
that  two  bishops  did  not  come  into  one  city,  and  that  they 
were  not  bigami,  or  uneducated,  or  maimed,  or  had  .previously 
done  penance.1 

In  the  same  year,  465,  a  Synod  was  held  at  Vennes  or 
Vannes  (Venetia)  in  Britanny  (Concilium  Veneticum),  when 
Paternus  was  ordained  bishop  of  this  city  by  the  Metropolitan 
Perpetuus  of  Tours  (see  p.  10).  There  were  six  bishops 
present,  and  these  published  a  synodal  letter,  still  extant,  to 
their  colleagues,  Victorius  of  le  Mans  and  Talasius  of  Angers, 
in  which  they  put  forth  sixteen  canons,  most  of  them  only 
repeating  earlier  ordinances  : — 

1.  Murderers    and    false    witnesses  are   to  be   excluded 
from  communion. 

2.  Those  who  leave  their  wives  on  account  of  unchastity, 
and  without  proof  of  the  adultery  marry  others,  are  to  be 
excluded  from  communion.     (If  a  man  repudiated  his  wife 
because  of  adultery  and  married  another,  this  was  disapproved 
of,  yet  was  not  visited  with  ecclesiastical  penance  by  the 
Synod  of  Aries,  A.D.  314  (cf.  vol.  i.  p.  189).) 

3.  Penitents  who  have  again    interrupted    their    public 
penance,  and  have  returned  to  their  former  aberrations,  and 
to  a  worldly  life,  are  not  only  to  be  shut  out  from  the  recep- 
tion of  the  sacraments  of  the  Lord  (a  communione   domini- 
corum  sacramentorum),   but    also    from    intercourse  with  the 
faithful  (a  conviviis  fidelium). 

1  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  927  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  788. 


4.  Virgins  who,  after  having  dedicated  themselves  to  God, 
and  on  this  promise  have  been  ordained,  fall  away  (in  adulterio 
deprehensce,  inasmuch  as  they,  being  brides  of  the  Lord,  in 
every  act  of  unchastity,  commit  adultery),  shall,   with  the 
partners  of  their  sin,  be  shut  out  from  communion. 

5.  Clerics  must  not   travel  without  a  testimonial   from 
their  bishop. 

6.  The  same  with  monks.     If  they  disobey,  they  are  to- 
be  beaten. 

7.  Monks  must  not  separate  from  their  community  and 
inhabit    separate    cells,   unless  with   the    permission   of   the 
abbot,  when  they  have  been  proved,  or  are  sick,  so  that  they 
may  be  dispensed  from  the  stringency  of  their  rule.     But  even 
in  this  case  their  separate  cells  must  be  within  the  walls  of 
the  monastery,  and  they  must  remain  under  the  supervision 
of  the  abbot. 

8.  Abbots  are  not  to  have  several  monasteries  or  dwell- 
ings ;  yet  in  case  of  hostile  assaults  (from  danger  in  war) 
they  may  have  a  residence  outside  of  their  monastery  in   a 
walled  town. 

9.  Clerics  must  not  bring  their  cases  before  the  secular 
tribunals.     (Cf.  Kober,  Kircheribann,  etc.,  S.  235.) 

1 0.  A  bishop  must  not  raise  a  cleric  from  another  diocese 
to  higher  ecclesiastical  dignities. 

11.  Priests,  deacons,  subdeacons,  and  all  those  who  are 
themselves  forbidden  to  marry,  must  not  be  present  at  the 
marriages    of    others,    nor    yet    in    companies    where    love 
songs     are     sung     and     indecent     gestures     are     used     at 
dances,  etc. 

12.  Clerics  are  not  to  eat  with  Jews. 

13.  They   are   particularly    to    keep    themselves    from 
drunkenness.     A  cleric    who    has    been    intoxicated    must, 
according  as  his  ordo  allows,  either  be  excluded  from  com- 
munion for  thirty  days,  or  receive  corporal  chastisement 

14.  A  cleric  in   the  city  who  is    absent    from   matins 
without  sufficient  excuse  on  account  of  sickness,  must  be 
excluded  from  communion  for  seven  days. 

15.  In  the  province  there  shall  be  one  ritual  and  one 
and  the  same  kind  of  singing. 

IV.  2 


1 6.  The  sortcs  satictorum  and  similar  ways  of  searching 
into  the  future  are  forbidden.1  Clerics  who  have  recourse  to 
them  are  to  be  excommunicated.2 

A  Synod  was  held  at  Chalons  sur  Saone  (Cdbillonurn) 
about  the  year  470,  concerning  which  we  receive  the  follow- 
ing information  from  a  letter  of  a  celebrated  Church  writer 
of  the  period,  Sidonius  Apollinaris,  to  Domnulus.  When, 
-after  the  death  of  Bishop  Paulus  of  Chalons,  the  Metropolitan 
Patiens  of  Lyons,  with  Euphronius  of  Autun  and  several 
others  of  his  suffragans,  had  come  into  that  city  in  order 
to  hold  a  Council  and  to  ordain  a  new  bishop,  they  found 
several  parties  there,  of  which  each  one,  from  selfish  reasons, 
wished  to  elect  a  different  bishop.  In  order  to  put  an  end 
to  this  party  action,  the  metropolitan,  after  previous  con- 
sultation with  his  bishops,  laid  hold  of  the  priest  and 
former  Archdeacon  John,  and  immediately  consecrated  him 
bishop,  without  his  having  the  least  warning  of  it.  All 
good  men  expressed  approval,  and  the  wicked  were  quite 
confounded,  and  did  not  venture  to  raise  any  objection 
to  one  so  universally  known  for  his  uprightness  as 

A  Synod  was  held  at  Antioch,  A.D.  471,  and  at  this  the 
intruded  Monophysite  Patriarch  Peter  Fullo  (see  above  vol. 
iii  p.  451)  was  deposed.  Julian  was  elected  in  his  stead, 
and  Peter  was  banished  by  the  Emperor  Leo.  This  is  shown 
in  considerable  detail  by  Pagi,  to  whose  discussion  for  short- 
ness we  may  refer  the  reader.4 

1  The  sortes  sanctorum  (sc.  bibliorum)  consisted  in  opening  the  Bible  (or  the 
works  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Church)  and  taking  the  first  verse  that  the  eye  lighted 
tipon  as  an  answer  to  the  question  which  one  had  in  petto.     It  was  a  superstition 
that  had  come  over  from  heathenism,  since  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  in  order  to 
discover  the  future,  opened  Homer  or  Virgil  at  random  and  regarded  the  first 
verse  that  presented  itself  as  an  oracle.     Cf.  the  art.  "  Sortilegium  "  in  Wetzer 
and  Welte's  Kirchenlexicon. 

2  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  951  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  795  sqq. ;  Sirmond,  Concilia 
Gallise,   t.  i.  p.  137  sqq.     Cf.  Eemi  Ceillier,  I.e.  p.  609  ;  Tillemont,  I.e.  p. 
401  sq. 

3  Sidon.  Apoll.  lib.  iv.  ep.  25  in  the  JBiblioth.  Max.  PP.,  Lugd.  t.  vi.  p.  1100, 
reproduced  by  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  998,  and  in  Sirmond,  Concilia  Gallis,  t.  i.  p.  141. 

4  Pagi,  Criiica  in  Annales  Baronii,  ad.  ann.  471,  ri.  3-7  incl.     Cf.  Mansi, 
t.  vii.  p.  999. 


The  above-named  Sidonius  Apollinaris  gives  us  informa- 
tion of  another  Synod  which  was  held,  A.D.  4 7 2,  in  Bourges. 
The  bishop  of  this  metropolis  was  dead,  and  the  suffragans 
assembled  for  the  consecration  of  his  successor  (Concilium 
JBituricense).  Among  the  suffragan  sees  of  the  metropolis  of 
Bourges  was  that  of  Clermont  in  Auvergne,  which  had  been 
occupied  since  A.D.  471  by  Sidonius  Apollinaris.  Although 
the  youngest  among  his  colleagues,  he  seems,  however,  as  the 
most  able,  to  have  had  the  chief  management  of  the  whole 
matter.  He  sent  invitations,  in  two  letters  which  are  still 
extant,  to  the  Metropolitan  Agraecius  of  Sens,  and  Bishop 
Euphronius  of  Autun,  although  they  belonged  to  other  pro- 
vinces, requesting  them  to  come  to  the  help  of  the  orphaned 
see  of  Bourges  and  assist  in  having  it  reoccupied,  since  the 
people  were  split  into  a  number  of  parties,  and  under  the 
influence  of  bribery  were  even  inclining  to  Arianism.  In  fact, 
Agrsecius  came  to  Bourges,  but  even  his  presence  did  not 
avail  to  reconcile  the  parties,  and  at  last  they  left  the  election 
of  the  new  bishop  to  Sidonius  Apollinaris.  He  delivered  a 
fine  discourse  to  the  people  assembled,  designating  Simplicius, 
whose  life  he  briefly  sketched,  as  the  worthiest  for  the 
position,  and  solemnly  proclaiming  him  as  metropolitan  of 

About  the  same  time,  between  A.D.  471  and  475,  a 
Synod  was  held  by  Archbishop  Mamertus  of  Vienne,  already 
mentioned,  in  his  episcopal  city,  in  order  to  obtain  the  con- 
currence of  his  colleagues  in  the  use  of  the  processional 
litanies  of  intercession  and  fasts  which  he  had  instituted  on 
the  three  days  preceding  Ascension  Day,  on  account  of  earth- 
quakes, thunderbolts,  and  other  calamities.  He  had  also 
invited  the  celebrated  Archbishop  Remigius  of  Reims  to 
the  Synod ;  but  the  latter  excused  himself  on  account 
of  his  great  age,  and  sent  the  priest  Vedastus  as  his 

1  Sidon.  Apoll.  lib.  vii.  ep.  5,  8,  and  9  (in  the  last  letter  Sidonius  gives  his 
•discourse  mentioned  above)  in  the  Biblioth.  Max.  PP.,  Lugd.  t.  vi.  pp.  1109  and 
1111  ;  also  printed  in  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  999,  and  in  Sirmond,  Concilia  Gallis, 
t.  i.  p.  142  sqq. 

-  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  1006  ;  Tillemont,  t.  xvi.  p.  112  j  Histoire  litttr.  de  la 
France,  t.  ii.  p.  442. 


SEC.  212.  Synods  at  Aries  on  the  Doctrine  of  Grace 
in  the  Years  475-480. 

Two  other  Galilean  Synods  at  Aries  and  Lyons,  between 
475  and  480,  were  occasioned  by  the  Galilean  priest  Lucidus, 
the  first  who  was  known  as  a  Predestinarian.1  Prosper 
Tiro  indeed  says  in  his  Chronicle  that,  in  the  twenty-third 
year  of  the  Emperor  Honorius,  that  is,  A.D.  417,  the  sect  of 
the  Predestinarians  arose  through  a  misunderstanding  of  the 
writings  of  Augustine  on  predestination ;  and  many  have 
followed  him  in  this.2  On  the  other  hand,  the  learned 
Cardinal  Noris  (Hist.  Pelagiana,  lib.  ii.  c.  15,  p.  178  sqq.  ed. 
Patav.  1677)  showed  that  this  could  not  possibly  be  correct, 
that  in  the  time  of  Prosper  there  were  as  yet  no  Predestin- 
arians, and  that  only  the  Semipelagians  had  maliciously 
reproached  the  true  Augustinians  with  predestinationism. 
Not  until  the  second  half  of  the  fifth  century,  he  argued, 
were  genuine  Predestinarians  to  be  found,' and  these  mostly 
uneducated  and  unimportant  people,  who  had  allowed  them- 
selves to  be  urged  on,  by  the  sophistical  objections  of  the 
Semipelagians,  from  their  original  Augustinian  point  of  view 
to  an  extreme  predestinationism. 

Among  these  Noris  numbers  especially  the  priest  Lucidus 
and  a  certain  Monimus  from  Africa,  who  maintained  that  a 
portion  of  mankind  was  predestined  by  God  to  sin.  On  this 
point  he  was  opposed  by  S.  Fulgentius  of  Euspe.  The  latter 
mentions  that  several  others  had  denied  human  liberty,  and 
ascribed  all  to  grace  (see  Noris,  I.e.  p.  184).  Such  was  also 
the  opinion  of  Lucidus.  Unfortunately  we  know  very  little 
of  him  or  of  the  two  Gallican  Synods  who  sat  in  judgment 
upon  him,  and  this  little  only  from  Faustus  of  Eiez,  who 
himself  was  not  orthodox  on  the  doctrine  of  grace,  and,  in 
opposition  to  Lucidus,  was  entangled  in  Semipelagian  error. 

From  a  letter  of  Faustus  to  Lucidus  we  learn  that  the 

1  Mangin,  in  his  work,  Veterum  Auctorum,  qui  ix.  Seculo  de  prssdestinatione 
ct  gratia  scripserunt,  etc.,  Paris  1650,  t.  ii.  p.  165,  maintains  that  this  Synod  of 
Aries,  as  well  as  that  of  Lyons  (see  at  the  end  of  this  section)  were  invented  by 
the  Semipelagians. 

3  In  the  Biblioth.  Max.  PP.,  Lugd.  t.  viii.  p.  201. 

SYNODS  AT  ARLES,  475-480.  21 

former  had  already  repeatedly  by  word  of  mouth  warned  the 
other  of  his  error,  but  in  vain.  This  letter,  however,  was 
written  about  the  time  when  the  Metropolitan  Leontius  of 
Aries  convoked  in  his  episcopal  city  a  great  Synod  of  thirty 
bishops,  among  them  several  metropolitans,  about  the  year 
475,  in  order  to  repudiate  the  predestinarian  heresy. 
Faustus  here  wrote  to  Lucidus,  representing  that,  as  the 
bishops  were  already  thinking  of  his  suspension,  he  would, 
from  love  to  him,  once  more  endeavour  by  writing  to  bring 
him  back  from  his  error,  although  he  thought  there  was  little 
hope  of  this.  He  would  quite  briefly  specify  the  points  which 
must  be  recognised  by  Lucidus.  He  must  (in  general)  always 
unite  with  the  grace  of  God  the  agency  of  the  baptized  man, 
and  condemn  whoever  excluded  the  co-operation  of  man  and 
taught  mere  predestination  on  the  one  hand,  just  as  he  must 
condemn  Pelagius  on  the  other.  Thus  he  must  anathematise 
(1)  anyone  who,  like  Pelagius,  denies  original  or  hereditary 
sin  and  the  necessity  of  grace ;  (2)  anyone  who  maintains 
that  the  baptized  and  orthodox  Christian,  who  becomes  a 
sinner,  is  lost  through  Adam  and  original  sin ; 1  (3)  anyone 
who  maintains  that  it  is  through  the  foreknowledge  of  God 
that  a  man  is  thrust  down  to  death  (of  the  soul) ;  (4)  any- 
one who  maintains  that  whosoever  is  lost  (i.e.  of  the  baptized, 
and  of  the  heathen  those  who  could  have  believed)  had  not 
received  the  grace  by  which  he  could  have  laid  hold  of  salva- 
tion ;  (5)  anyone  who  should  say  that  a  vessel  of  dishonour 
could  not  raise  itself  so  as  to  become  a  vessel  of  honour ; 
(6)  anyone  who  should  say  that  Christ  did  not  die  for  all 
men,  and  did  not  will  that  all  men  should  be  saved. 

If  Lucidus  would  come  of  his  own  accord  to  Faustus, 
the  latter  said,  or  were  summoned  by  the  bishops,  he  would 
lay  before  him  at  length  the  proofs  for  the  orthodox  doctrine. 
He  adds :  "  We,  however,  maintain  that  whoever  is  lost  by 
his  own  fault,  could  have  obtained  salvation  through  grace  if 
he  had  co-operated  with  it ;  and  that,  on  the  other  side,  who- 
soever through  grace  attains,  by  means  of  his  own  co-opera- 

1  Faustus,  on  the  contrary,  would  say  that  "as  original  sin  is  forgiven  in 
baptism,  a  sinful  Christian  must  fail,  not  through  Adam  and  original  sin,  but 
through  misuse  of  his  liberty." 


tion,  to  the  goal  of  perfection,  might  also,  through  his  negli- 
gence and  his  own  fault,  have  fallen  and  been  lost.  We  yet 
exclude  all  personal  pride,  since  we  maintain  that  we  receive 
all  from  the  hand  of  God  as  a  gift,  not  as  a  reward."  He 
intimates  that  Lucidus  should  express  himself  on  these  points 
as  soon  as  possible,  and  that  if  he  did  not  send  back  a  sub- 
scription to  the  contents  of  his  letter,  he  should  have  to 
appear  publicly  before  the  Synod  as  his  accuser.1 

In  one  manuscript  this  letter  is  subscribed  by  Faustus 
alone,  in  another  by  ten  other  bishops,  so  that  we  may 
improve  upon  the  supposition  of  Noris  (I.e.  p.  185)  by  the 
suggestion,  that  Faustus  may  have  sent  it  first  from  himself, 
and  then,  in  order  to  give  greater  importance  to  the  matter, 
may  have  had  a  second  copy  signed  by  ten  of  his  colleagues, 
who  perhaps  had  assembled  at  a  preliminary  Synod,  held  in 
preparation  for  the  appointed  greater  Council,  and  sent  it  to 
Lucidus.  The  latter,  seeing  the  seriousness  of  the  matter, 
subscribed,  as  Faustus  had  wished,  and  this  subscription  of 
his  is  still  found  appended  to  the  letter  in  question.2 

Besides  this,  Lucidus  addressed  a  letter  to  the  thirty 
bishops  assembled  at  Aries,3  in  which  he  says  that  the  Synod 
had  drawn  up  certain  statuta  predicandi  (forms  of  teaching), 
and  that  Lucidus,  in  accordance  with  these,  now  condemned 
(1)  the  opinion,  that  the  work  of  human  obedience  towards 
God  (i.e.  human  co-operation)  must  not  be  united  with  divine 
grace ;  and  also  (2)  the  assertion,  that  through  the  fall  of  the 
first  man  freewill  had  been  entirely  annihilated ;  (3)  the 
assertion,  that  Christ  did  not  die  for  the  salvation  of  all  men ; 
(4)  the  assertion,  that  the  foreknowledge  of  God  powerfully 
constrains  men  to  spiritual  death,  and  that  whoever  perishes 
is  lost  with  (cum)  the  will  of  God ;  (5)  the  assertion,  that 
whoever  sins  after  valid  baptism,  dies  in  Adam  (i.e.  is  not  lost 
in  consequence  of  his  own  sinful  actions ;  see  above) ;  (6)  the 
assertion,  that  some  are  destined  (deputati)  to  death,  and 

1  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  1007  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  806  sqq.;  Sirmond,  Concilia 
Gallise,  t.  i.  p.  147  sqq. 

3  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  1010  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  808  ;  Sirmond,  I.e.  p.  150. 

3  Cellotius  was  of  opinion  that  this  letter  of  Lucidus  was  addressed  to  the 
somewhat  later  Synod  of  Lyons  ;  Noris,  on  the  contrary  (I.e.  p.  1866),  thinks 
it  more  probable  that  it  was  addressed  to  the  earlier  Synod  at  Aries. 

SYNODS  AT  AKLES,  475-480.  23 

others  predestinated  (prcedestinati)  to  life ;  (7)  the  assertion, 
that  from  Adam  to  Christ  no  heathen  has  obtained  salvation 
through  the  gratia  prima  of  God,  that  is,  through  the  natural 
law,  hoping  in  the  coming  of  Christ,  inasmuch  as  all  had  lost 
freewill  in  their  first  parents ;  (8)  the  assertion,  that  the 
patriarchs  and  prophets  and  saints  had  been  in  Paradise 
even  before  the  time  of  redemption.  All  these  propositions, 
he  said,  he  condemned  as  impious  and  sacrilegious,  but  the 
doctrine  of  grace  he  held  fast,  in  such  a  sense  as  not  to 
exclude  human  effort ;  and  he  maintained  that  the  freewill  of 
man  was  not  annihilated,  but  only  weakened  and  diminished 
(attenitatam  et  infirmatam) ;  further,  that  one  who  was  in  a 
state  of  salvation  should  yet  be  conscious  of  the  danger  of 
falling,  and,  on  the  other  side,  that  one  who  was  lost  might 
have  obtained  salvation.  He  said  he  had  formerly  maintained 
that  Christ  had  come  into  the  world  only  for  the  sake  of 
those  of  whom  He  knew  beforehand  that  they  would  believe ; 
but  that  now  he  acknowledged  that  Christ  had  also  come  for 
the  sake  of  those  who  are  lost,  and  that  they  are  lost 
eo  nolente.  Finally,  he  said,  he  maintained  that  some  had 
obtained  salvation  through  the  law  of  grace,  others  through 
the  law  of  Moses,  others  again  through  the  law  of  nature, 
which  God  had  written  in  the  hearts  of  all,  in  hope  of  the 
coming  of  Christ ;  but  that  from  the  beginning  of  the  world, 
on  account  of  our  union  with  our  first  parents,  no  one  had 
been  saved  in  any  other  manner  than  through  the  mediation 
of  the  holy  blood  of  Christ.1 

We  learn  further  from  Faustus  of  Eiez  that  Archbishop 
Leontius,  in  agreement  with  the  Synod  of  Aries,  commissioned 
him  to  write  out  at  full  length  in  a  book  all  that  was  trans- 
acted at  the  Synod  on  the  doctrine  of  grace  and  in  opposition 
to  the  Predestinarians.  In  fulfilment  of  this  commission, 
Faustus  composed  his  two  books,  de  gratia  Dei  et  humance 
mentis  libero  arbitrio,  in  the  prologue  to  which,  addressed  to 
Leontius,  he  sets  forth  the  matter  just  referred  to ; 2  but  his 

1  Mansi,  t  vii.  p.  1010  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  809  ;  Sirmond,  Concilia  Gallia, 
t.  i.  p.  150  sq. 

-  Noris,  I.e.  p.  177  ;  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  1007  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  805  ; 
Sirmond,  I.e.  p.  147  sq. 


work  is  composed  in  a  thoroughly  Semipelagian  sense,  and 
under  the  show  of  combating  predestinarianism,  he  carries  on 
a  continuous  warfare  against  Augustine.  At  the  end  of  the 
prologue  he  further  states :  "  Because  at  the  end  of  the  Synod 
of  Aries,  and  after  all  had  subscribed  its  decrees,  new  errors 
emerged  (probably  new  predestinarian  views),  it  was  ordered 
by  a  fresh  Synod  at  Lyons  that  something  should  be  added  to 
the  treatise  de  gratia  Dei,"  etc. 

We  have  no  further  particulars  of  this  Lugdunense  Con- 
cilium, unless  we  are  to  refer  to  this  Synod  the  note  which  is 
found  in  some  old  conciliar  manuscripts  to  this  effect :  The 
holy  Archbishop  Patiens  of  Lyons  laid  before  this  Synod  a 
book,  De  ecclesiasticis  dogmatibus.1  It  is  supposed  that  this 
book  was  a  treatise  of  Gennadius  which  bears  this 
very  title;  and  if  so,  then  the  Semipelagian  tendency, 
represented  by  the  dominating  intellect  of  Faustus,  pre- 
vailed no  less  at  the  Synod  of  Lyons  than  at  the  Synod 
of  Aries. 

SEC.  213.  Synods  on  the  Affairs  of  the  Greek  and  Oriental 

We  learn  from  the  Church  History  of  Evagrius 2  that,  in 
the  year  475  or  477,  a  Synod  had  been  held  at  Ephesus 
under  the  presidency  of  the  Monophysite  Patriarch  Timothy 
^lurus  of  Alexandria  (see  vol.  iii.  p.  450).  The  Emperor 
Basilicus  had,  in  a  special  decree,  declared  the  fourth  (Ecu- 
menical Synod  of  Chalcedon  invalid,  and  deprived  the 
patriarchal  see  of  Constantinople  of  the  prerogative  which  had 
been  assigned  to  it  at  Chalcedon  (see  vol.  iii.  p.  411), 
because  Bishop  Acacius  had  refused  to  subscribe  this  decree. 
The  Emperor  soon  saw  himself  under  the  necessity  of  repeal- 
ing this  decree  and  becoming  reconciled  with  Acacius.  This 
gave  occasion  to  Timothy  JElurus  of  Alexandria  to  hold  a 
Synod  at  Ephesus  in  order  to  meet  this  change  of  circum- 
stances. Dominated  by  Timothy,  the  bishops,  although 

1  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  1011  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  810  ;  Sinnond,  I.e.  p.  152  ;  Noris, 
I.e.  p.  177  ;  Remi  Ceillier,  I.e.  p.  620. 

2  Book  iii.  cc.  5  and  6.     Cf.  the  notes  of  Valesius  on  the  passage. 


many  of  them  were  not  Monophysites,1  nevertheless  voted 
a  memorial  to  the  Emperor,  requesting  that  he  would  con- 
tinue the  old  decree  and  the  disallowance  of  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon.  They  also  replaced  in  his  bishopric  the  dispos- 
sessed Bishop  Paul  of  Ephesus,  declared  the  privileges  of  the 
patriarchate  of  Constantinople  abolished,  restored  to  the  see 
of  Ephesus  the  exarchal  rights  which  it  formerly  possessed 
(see  vol.  iii.  p.  375),  and  pronounced  the  deposition  of 
Acacius  of  Constantinople.2  It  is,  however,  a  mistake  to 
suppose  that  this  Synod  had  also  confirmed  Eutychianism. 
This  would  not  have  been  done  even  by  Timothy  ^lurus ; 
for,  when  the  Eutychian  monks  came  to  him  and  hoped  for 
his  support,  he  expressed  himself  decisively  in  opposition  to 
the  tenets  of  Eutychianism,  saying  that  "  the  flesh  of  Christ 
(i.e.  His  humanity)  was  essentially  the  same  as  ours."  3 

Evagrius  informs  us  (lib.  iii.  c.  6)  that  Timothy  ^Elurus 
returned  to  Alexandria  after  the  ending  of  this  Ephesian 
Synod,  in  order  here  also  to  secure  the  rejection  of  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon ;  and  the  Libellus  Synodicus  adds  that  at 
Alexandria,  too,  he  got  up  a  Synod,  and  thereby  attained  the 
end  mentioned.4  The  same  Synodieon  speaks  further  of  a 
Council  which  was  assembled  at  Cyrus  in  Syria,  in  the  year 
478  (not  482,  as  Hardouin  erroneously  supposed),  by  John, 
bishop  of  that  place.  At  this  Synod  an  anathema  was  pro- 
nounced on  Peter  Fullo,  the  Mouophysite  intruder  into  the 
see  of  Antioch.5 

About  the  same  time,  after  the  overthrow  of  the  Emperor 
Basilicus,  Peter  Fullo  was  deposed  at  an  Antiochene  Synod 
also,  and  John  of  Apamea  was  raised  to  the  throne  of  Antioch. 
Not  long  before  Peter  Fullo  himself  had  raised  this  John  of 
Apamea  to  the  episcopate.  As,  however,  the  citizens  of  this 

1  This  is  shown  by  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  1015. 

2Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  1013-1016.     Cf.  the  remark  of  Valesius  in  Evagrius,  Hist. 
Eccl.  lib.  iii.  c.  5. 

3  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  1015. 

4  In  Hardouin,  t.  v.  p.  1526  ;  Mansi,  t.  vii.  pp.  1175  and  1018.     Hardouin 
gives  in  the  margin  the  incorrect  date  481.     Timothy  ^lurus  had  died  in  477. 
On  the  Libellus  Synodicus,  cf.  vol.  i.  p.  84. 

5  Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  1018  and  1175  ;  Hardouin,  t.  v.  p.  1527.     On  Peter  Fullo, 
cf.  vol.  iii.' sec.  208. 


city  would  not  receive  him,  he  had  returned  to  Antioch,  joined 
the  party  of  opposition,  and  supplanted  his  former  consecrator. 
But  he  too,  after  three  months,  was  in  his  turn  deposed  by  a 
new  Synod  held  at  Antioch,  which  confirmed  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon,  and  a  pious  man,  of  the  name  of  Stephen,  was 
raised  to  the  throne  of  that  city.  In  a  synodal  letter  which 
he  immediately  afterwards  addressed  to  the  Patriarch  Acacius 
of  Constantinople,  he  informed  him  of  his  consecration  and 
the  deposition  of  both  Peter  Fullo  and  John  of  Apamea.1 
Hereupon  Acacius,  in  the  year  478,  held  a  o-woSo?  eV&^/zoOo-a 
in  Constantinople,  at  which  these  proceedings  were  confirmed, 
and  Peter  Fullo  was  anathematised,  especially  because  he  had 
added  to  the  Trisagion  the  words,  "  who  was  crucified  for  us," 
by  which  he  intended  to  imply  that  the  triune  God  had 
undergone  the  death  of  the  cross  (see  vol.  iii.  sec.  208). 

In  reference  to  this  Synod,  we  possess  also  a  letter,  dis- 
covered by  Lucas  Holstenius,  written  by  Pope  Simplicius  to 
Acacius  of  Constantinople,  and  also  the  synodal  letter  to  Peter 
Fullo,  drawn  up  by  Acacius,2  which  belongs  not  to  the  year 
483,  as  was  previously  supposed,  but  to  the  year  478,  as 
Mansi,  following  the  lead  of  Pagi,  has  shown  (I.e.  p.  1019). 
Mansi  has  also  pointed  out  that,  very  soon  afterwards,  Pope 
Simplicius  also  held  a  Synod  at  Rome,  and  in  like  manner 
pronounced  anathemas  on  Peter  Fullo,  John  of  Apamea,  and 
Paul  (of  Ephesus).  Of  this  Roman  Synod  we  possess  still  two 
letters  addressed  to  Peter  Fullo,3  which  have  been,  in  the 
Collections  of  the  Councils  since  Binius,  attributed  erroneously 
to  Pope  Felix  m.  and  his  Synod  of  the  year  485,  but  which, 
in  fact,  belong  to  Pope  Simplicius  and  his  Synod,  as  has  been 
shown  by  Pagi  (ad  ann.  478,  n.  9  sqq.). 

As  we  saw,  Stephen  was  raised  to  the  throne  of  Antioch 
in  the  year  478.  When  he  died  in  the  year  4 8 14  another 
Stephen  was  appointed  his  successor  by  a  new  Antiochene 

1  Mansi,  t.  vii.  pp.  1018  and  1175  ;  Hardouin,  t.  v.  p.  1527.     Compare  the 
treatise  of  Valesius,  de  Petro  AntiocJicno,  c.  2,  in  the  Appendix  to  his  edition  of 
the  Ecclesiastical  History  of  Evagrius. 

2  In  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  995  sqq.  and  p.  1121  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  842. 

3  In  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  1037  sqq.  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  817  sqq. 

4  In  opposition  to  Tillemont  (t.  xvi.  p.  316)  and  Remi  Ceillier  (p.  621),  I 
follow  here  the  chronology  of  Pagi,  ad  ann.  479,  n.  2,  and  ad  ann.  482,  n.  2. 


Synod.  The  adherents  of  Peter  Fullo,  however,  speedily 
accused  him  of  Nestorianism,  and  succeeded  in  getting  the 
Emperor  to  recommend  that  the  accusation  should  be  inquired 
into  at  a  Synod.  This  was  done  at  a  Council  at  Laodicea,  of 
which  we  have  information  from  the  Libellus  Synodicus  and 
Theophanes,  with  the  addition  that  Stephen's  orthodoxy  was 
vindicated,  and  his  elevation  to  the  throne  of  Antioch  confirmed. 
Discontented  with  this  decision,  his  enemies  one  day  laid  hold 
of  Bishop  Stephen  in  the  baptistery  of  S.  Barlaam  the 
Martyr,  and  put  him  to  death  with  sharp-pointed  reeds.1  In 
punishment,  Theophanes  further  tells  us,  the  Emperor  Zeno 
deprived  the  Antiochenes  of  the  right  to  elect  another  bishop, 
and  conferred  the  power  of  doing  so  for  this  time  upon  the 
Patriarch  Acacius,  who  immediately  consecrated  Calendion  as 
bishop  of  Antioch,  at  Constantinople.2  Knowing  nothing  of 
this,  the  Oriental  bishops,  on  the  other  hand,  elected  John 
Codonatus  to  be  patriarch  of  Antioch ;  but  Calendion  at  once 
took  possession  of  the  see,  and  secured  his  recognition  at  an 
Antiochene  Synod  in  the  year  482,  as  well  as  with  Pope 
Simplicius,  whilst  Codonatus  subsequently  obtained  the  see  of 
Tyre.  Theophanes  professes  to  know  that  Calendion  himself 
consecrated  Codonatus  for  Tyre ;  but  we  see  clearly  from  the 
letters  of  Pope  Felix  that  this  John  Codonatus  is  identical 
with  the  John  of  Apamea  whom  we  know,  and  that 
Acacius  of  Constantinople  gave  him  the  see  of  Tyre  as 
indemnity,  and  that  the  Pope  declared  the  transaction  null 
and  void.3 

In  the  meantime  Bishop  Timothy  Salophaciolus  of  Alex- 
andria (see  vol.  iii.  sec.  208)  had  also  died,  and  John  surnamed 
Talaja  or  Tabennesiota  (Tabennesian  monk  of  the  monastery  of 
Canopus),  up  to  this  time  treasurer  of  the  Church  of  Alex- 
andria, was  elected  to  succeed  him.  In  accordance  with 
custom,  in  union  with  the  Alexandrian  Synod  assembled 
around  him,  he  immediately  sent  communications  in  writing 
to  Pope  Simplicius  and  to  Calendion  of  Antioch,  but  not  to 

1  Theophanes,  Chronographia,  ad  ann.  5793,  ed.  Bonn,  t.  i.  p.  199. 

2  Pagi,  ad  ann.  482,  n.  2-11. 

3  Theophanes,  I.e.  ;  Pagi,  ad  ann.  482,  n.  12 ;  Mansi,  t.  vii.  pp.  1023,  1054 
sqq.  1140. 


Acacius  of  Constantinople,  perhaps  because  he  had  formerly 
cherished  a  grudge  against  him.  He  had  formerly  spent  a 
considerable  time  at  Constantinople  as  envoy  from  his  bishop. 
Acacius,  irritated  by  this,  persuaded  the  Emperor  Zeno  that 
John  was  not  a  fit  person  for  the  important  see  of  Alexandria, 
since  he  had  given  to  the  previous  bishop  the  advice  that  he 
should  enter  the  name  of  Dioscurus  in  the  diptychs  of  the 
Church.  Moreover,  he  said,  he  was  perjured,  for  he  had, 
during  his  residence  at  Constantinople,  taken  an  oath  that  he 
would  not  seek  for  the  bishopric.  Much  more  suitable  than 
John  was  Peter  Mongus  (see  vol.  iii.  sec.  308),  who  had 
formally  been  elected  by  the  Monophysites,  after  the  death  of 
Timothy  ^Elurus,  as  bishop  of  Alexandria,  but  had  been 
expelled  by  the  Emperor  Zenb.  The  reason  that  Acacius  now 
recommended  this  man,  and  that  the  Emperor  acted  upon  his 
advice,  arose  from  the  fact  that  the  Emperor  had  just  pro- 
mulgated his  infamous  Henoticon  under  the  advice  of  Acacius 
(A.D.  482),  and  Peter  Mongus  was  fully  disposed  to  assist  in 
carrying  it  through,  that  is,  to  labour  for  a  union  between 
the  Orthodox  and  Monophysites,  on  the  ground  of  this 

The  Emperor  Zeno  immediately  wrote  to  Pope  Simplicius 
that  John  was,  for  the  reasons  assigned,  unworthy  of  the  see 
of  Alexandria,  and  that  Peter  Mongus  was  much  better  quali- 
fied to  restore  peace  in  the  churches  of  that  region.  On  the  one 
side,  the  Pope  allowed  himself  to  be  persuaded  not  at  once  to 
recognise  John  formally,  but  on  the  other  side  he  at  the  same 
time  openly  communicated  to  the  Emperor  his  opinion  that 
Peter  Mongus  was  not  at  all  the  right  man,  and  that  he  was 
still  under  suspicion  of  heresy.1  Zeno  paid  no  regard  to 
this,  and  commanded  the  Dux  JEgypti  to  expel  John,  and  to 
induct  Peter  Mongus  on  condition  that  he  accepted  the 
Henoticon  and  sent  synodal  letters  to  Acacius,  Simplicius  of 
Rome,  and  the  other  archbishops.  This  was  done,  and  Acacius 
immediately  recognised  Mongus,  and  introduced  his  name  into 
the  diptychs  of  his  church.  The  Libellus  Synodicus  states  that 
Peter  Mongus  thereupon  immediately  held  a  Synod  in  Alex- 

1  Compare  his  letters  to  Acacius  and  to  the  Emperor  in  Mansi,  t.  vii.  pp.  992 
and  994. 


andria,  and,  in  communion  with  it,  pronounced  anathema  on 
the  Council  of  Chalcedon.1 

The  banished  John  Talaja,  following  the  advice  of  Calen- 
dion  of  Antioch,  betook  himself  in  person  to  Rome,  in  order 
to  lay  his  cause  before  the  Pope,  and  to  invoke  the  protection 
of  the  Eoman  see.  He  arrived  at  the  beginning  of  the  year 
483,  and  induced  the  Pope  to  write  two  other  letters  on  his 
account  to  Acacius,  in  addition  to  the  one  which  he  had 
already  exchanged  with  him  on  the  same  subject.  He  also 
drew  up  a  complete  letter  of  accusation  against  Acacius  for 
presentation  to  the  Pope.2  Simplicius,  however,  died  on  the 
2nd  of  March  483,  and  was  succeeded  by  Felix  II.  or  in. 
John  Talaja  now  immediately  brought  his  complaint  and  his 
memorial  before  the  new  Pope.  Felix  thought  it  best,  as 
Acacius  had  not  yet  answered  the  most  recent  letters  of 
Siniplicius,  to  send  two  envoys,  Bishops  Vitalis  and  Misenus, 
together  with  the  Defensor3  Felix,  to  the  Emperor  Zeno  and 
to  Acacius,  to  confirm  them  in  their  adhesion  to  the  Council 
of  Chalcedon,  and  to  induce  them  to  expel  Peter  Mongus,  and 
replace  John  Talaja  in  his  see.4  At  the  same  time,  he  gave 
the  legates  a  libellus  citationis  to  Acacius,5  stating  that  Acacius 
must  give  an  answer  in  Rome  to  the  accusations  of  Talaja. 
There  was  also  a  letter  addressed  to  the  Emperor,  in  which 
the  Pope  acquainted  him  with  the  communication,  and 
renewed  the  accusations  against  Peter  Mongus.6  It  is  the 
ordinary  opinion  that  Pope  Felix  at  the  same  time  held  a 
Synod  in  Rome,  and  in  its  name  despatched  the  letters  to  the 
Emperor  and  Acacius ;  but  Pagi  has  shown  that  the  grounds 
of  this  opinion  are  contestable. 

At  a  later  date,  Felix  sent  to  his  legates  two  other  letters, 

1  Mansi,  t.  vii.  pp.  1023  and  1178  ;  Hardouin,  t.  v.  p.  1527  ;  Pagi,  ad  ann. 
482,  n.  19  sqq. 

-  Cf.  Liberati,  Breviar.  c.  18,  in  Galland,  Biblioth.  PP.  t.  xii.  p.  150  ;  Pagi, 
ad  ann.  483,  n.  4. 

3  [For  the  nature  of  this  office,  see  the  Diet,  of  CJirist.  Antiq.  i.  542.] 

4  The  letters  of  Pope  Felix  to  both  are  given  by  Mansi,  t.  vii.  pp.  1028  and 
1031,  and  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  pp.  811  and  814. 

8  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  1108  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  829. 

•  In  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  1108  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  830.    Cf.  Evagrius,  Hist. 
Ecd.   iii.    18 ;  Breviculus  Historic  Eutych.  ed.  Sirmond,  p.    122 ;  Liberati, 
Breviar.  c.  18,  in  Galland,  I.e.  p.  150  ;  Pagi,  ad  ann.  483,  n.  4  and  5. 


which  are  now  lost,  for  the  Emperor  and  Acacius,  and  recom- 
mended the  envoys  to  undertake  nothing  without  having 
previous  consultation  with  Cyril,  the  abbot  of  the  Akoimetae 
at  Constantinople.1  When,  however,  the  two  legates,  Vitalis 
and  Misenus,  arrived  at  Abydos  on  the  Hellespont — the 
Defensor  Felix,  on  account  of  illness,  had  to  depart  later — 
they  were  arrested  by  command  of  the  Emperor,  cast  into 
prison,  robbed  of  their  papers,  and  even  threatened  with 
death  unless  they  would  consent  to  enter  into  Church  com- 
munion with  Acacius  and  Mongus.  In  case  of  their  acqui- 
escence, on  the  other  hand,  presents  and  favours  were  held 
out  to  them,  and  thus  they  were  imposed  upon,  and  gave  in. 
They  were  now  brought  to  Constantinople,  set  at  liberty,  and 
treated  with  the  greatest  distinction,  until,  disregarding  all 
the  warnings  of  the  orthodox,  they  went  so  far  as  to  take  part 
in  a  solemn  Church  service  held  by  Acacius,  at  which  he  read 
out  the  name  of  Mongus  from  the  diptychs,  and  received  the 
communion  with  Mongus'  representative.  When  the  Defensor 
Felix  subsequently  arrived  at  Constantinople,  Acacius  did  not 
receive  him,  and  treated  him  in  a  hostile  manner,  because  he 
would  not,  like  the  two  legates,  hold  communion  with  Peter 

Cyril,  abbot  of  the  Akoimetae,  immediately  sent  the 
monk  Simeon  to  Home,  in  order  to  acquaint  the  Pope  with 
what  had  taken  place ; 3  and  when  the  legates  returned  soon 
afterwards,  and  brought  letters  from  the  Emperor,  as  well  as 
from  Acacius,  favouring  Peter  Mongus,  and  throwing  sus- 
picion upon  Talaja,4  Pope  Felix  made  immediate  arrangements 
for  a  Eoman  Synod,  which  should  decide  between  his  legates 
and  their  accusers.  In  the  first  place,  Vitalis  and  Misenus 
were  called  upon  for  their  defence,  when,  besides  the  monk 
Simeon,  the  priest  Silvanus,  who  had  been  in  Constantinople 
at  the  same  time  with  the  legates,  appeared  as  a  witness 
against  them.  They  were  deposed  from  their  episcopal  offices, 

1  Evagrius,  Hist.  Ecd.  iii.  19. 

2  Theophanes,  I.e.  p.   204  sqq.  ;  Evagrius,  Hist.  Ecd.  iii.  20  ;  Liberati,  I.e.  ; 
Pagi,  ad  ann.  483,  n.  6,  and  484,  n.  2  and  3. 

3  Evagritis,  iii.  21. 

4  A  portion  of  the  imperial  letter  is  preserved  by  Evagrius,  iii.  20. 


and  excluded  from  the  holy  communion,  and  at  the  same 
time  the  excommunication  and  anathema  on  Peter  Mongus 
was  repeated.  In  a  second  session  the  Synod  condemned 
also  Acacius  of  Constantinople,  and  declared  him  unworthy 
of  his  ecclesiastical  dignity,  and  deprived  him  of  Church 
communion.  A  fragment  of  this  sentence  is  found  in  the 
Breviculus  Histories  JEutychianistarum,1  and,  from  this  source, 
in  Mansi,2  besides  which  we  still  possess  the  synodal  letter 
in  which  the  Pope  gave  public  notice  to  Acacius  of  the  con- 
demnation pronounced  upon  him.3 

The  copy  of  it,  which  we  still  possess,  gives  at  the  end 
the  historical  information  that  sixty-seven  bishops,  besides 
Pope  Felix,  had  subscribed.  But  this  certainly  refers  rather 
to  the  synodal  Acts  which  remained  in  Home,  than  to  the 
synodal  letter  which  was  sent  to  Greece.  The  latter,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  usual  practice  in  regard  to  such  writings,4 
was  drawn  up  only  in  the  name  of  the  Pope,  on  which 
account  the  Greeks  brought  the  objection  against  the 
deposition  of  Acacius,  that  it  had  proceeded  merely  from 
Felix,  and  not  from  a  Synod.  This  was  evidently  incorrect ; 
but  it  might  be  urged,  as  Pope  Gelasius,  in  replying  to  this 
objection  of  the  Greeks,  in  his  epistle  ad  episcopos  Dardanice,5 
did  not  merely  reply,  that  "  Acacius  had  been  deposed  at  a 
Synod,"  but  rather  argued  that  the  Pope  had  the  power  to 
depose  him  without  a  Synod.  Baronius  (ad  ann.  484,  n.  21) 
attempts  to  remove  this  difficulty  by  the  assumption  that  the 
Greeks  had  complained  that  an  (Ecumenical  Synod  had  not 
been  held,  and  that  Gelasius  had  replied  to  them  only  in  this 
sense.  Pagi  (ad  ann.  484,  n.  4)  rejects  this  expedient,  and 
endeavours  to  find  another.  The  Greeks,  he  says,  only 
maintained  Acadum  non  jure  damnatum,  quod  non  speciali 
synodo  videatur  fuisse  dcjectus,6  that  is  to  say,  that  he  had  not 
been  condemned  at  a  special  Synod,  called  on  his  account, 

1  In  Sirmond,  p.  123,  in  the  Appendix  eodic.  Theodos. 
-  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  1065. 

3  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  1053  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  831. 

4  See  towards  the  end  of  this  section  ;  also  vol.  i.  p.  74  ;  and  Pagi,  ad  ann. 
484,  n.  4. 

5  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  49  sqq.  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  905  sqq. 

6  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  49. 


but  only  as  it  were  en  passant  at  that  Synod  which  had  met 
for  another  purpose,  for  the  purpose  of  examining  the  accusa- 
tions against  the  two  legates.  For  this  reason  he  thinks 
that  Pope  Gelasius,  in  the  letter  ad  episcopos  Dardanice,  had  in 
his  eye  only  the  failure  to  hold  a  synodus  specialis. 

However  this  may  be,  the  papal  letter  to  Acacius  is  dated 
July  28,  484.  The  ordinary  opinion  has  consequently  been 
that  the  first  session,  whicli  dealt  with  the  case  of  Vitalis  and 
Misenus,  took  place  only  a  few  days  earlier,  also  in  the  second 
half  of  July.  Pagi,  on  the  other  hand  (ad  ann.  484,  n.  9), 
makes  it  probable  that  one  Synod  held  its  first  session  early 
in  484,  and  that  in  this  a  new  admonition  was  sent  to 
Acacius, — the  second  which  he  received  from  Borne, — and 
that  as  this  also  was  ineffectual,  steps  were  taken  in  July  for 
his  condemnation. 

In  the  synodal  letter  to  Acacius  he  was  reminded  of  all 
his  offences,  particularly  his  violation  of  the  jus  gentium  in 
his  treatment  of  the  papal  legates.  A  second  letter  in  this 
direction  was  sent  by  Felix,  on  the  1st  of  August  484,  to  the 
Emperor,1  acquainting  him  with  all  that  had  been  done,  and 
exhorting  him  to  stand  by  the  right.  He  had  to  choose 
between  communion  with  the  Apostle  Peter  or  with  Peter 
Mongus.  At  the  same  time  the  Pope  mentions  that  he  has 
sent  the  Defensor  Tutus  to  Constantinople  in  order  to  publish 
the  sentence  against  Acacius.  A  third  letter  was  addressed 
to  the  clergy  and  laity  of  Constantinople,  in  order  that  all 
should  be  convinced  of  the  necessity  and  justice  of  the 
sentence  pronounced  against  Acacius.2 

In  spite  of  the  imperial  guard  who  tried  to  prevent  the 
entrance  of  any  unwelcome  strangers,  the  Defensor  Tutus 
succeeded  in  reaching  Constantinople,  where  he  formed  a 
union  with  the  monks,  and  delivered  to  them  the  documents 
which  he  had  brought  with  him.  They  had  the  courage  to 
convey  to  Acacius  his  sentence  of  deposition  by  fixing  it  to 
the  door  of  the  church,  and  thus  giving  it  publication,  an 

1  That  this  letter  was  written  a  few  days  after  the  end  of  this  Synod,  and 
does  not  belong  to  the  following  Roman  Synod,  is  shown  by  Pagi,  ad  ann. 
485,  n.  5. 

2  Mansi,  t.  vii.  pp.  1065,  1067.     These  two  letters  are  wanting  in  Hardouin. 


act  which  several  of  them  had  to  expiate  with  their  lives.1 
Acacius,  however,  took  so  little  account  of  all  this,  that  he 
now  formally  struck  the  name  of  the  Pope  off  the  diptychs  of 
his  Church,  stopped  communion  with  Eome,  and  in  order  to 
give  effect  to  the  Henoticon,  he  subjected  those  who  were 
strictly  orthodox  to  more  severe  persecution.  In  particular, 
he  deposed  Calendion  of  Antioch,  and  in  his  place  put  Peter 
Fullo,  who  had  formerly  been  a  Monophysite,  and  who  now 
accepted  the  Henoticon.  This  gave  occasion  for  a  new  Eoman 
Synod,  in  October  485,  which  pronounced  the  deposition  of 
this  intruder.  Two  letters  are  given,  as  having  been  addressed 
by  Pope  Felix,  in  the  name  of  this  Synod,  to  Peter  Fullo,2 
pointing  out  his  heretical  doctrine  and  his  irregular  intrusion. 
Volesius  regarded  them  as  spurious  ;  but  Pagi,  on  the  contrary 
(ad  ann.  478,  n.  9  sqq.),  defended  their  genuineness,  and  showed 
that  both  proceeded  from  the  Eoman  Synod  of  478,  held  under 
Pope  Simplicius  (see  near  the  beginning  of  this  section). 
We  have,  however,  a  letter  of  Felix,  belonging  to  this  time, 
addressed  to  the  Emperor  Zeno,3  in  which  Peter  Fullo  in 
particular  is  blamed  because  of  the  addition  to  the  Trisagion, 
"  who  was  crucified  for  us,"  and  the  assertion  connected  with 
it,  " one  of  the  Trinity  suffered  in  substantia  Deitatis"  be- 
cause thereby  the  true  and  full  incarnation  of  Christ  was 
detracted  from  (see  above,  sec.  213,  and  vol.  iii.  sec.  208). 

To  the  same  Eoman  Synod  belongs  also  the  letter  ad 
clericos  et  monachos  Orientales*  According  to  an  ancient  codex 
this  letter  is  dated  October  5,  485,5  and  properly  is  only  an 
addition  to  the  formal  decree  of  the  Synod.  The  letter,  as 
the  bishops  here  say,  in  accordance  with  the  prevailing 
custom,  was  sent  forth  in  the  name  of  the  Pope,  as  proceed- 
ing from  him.  This  letter  adds  further  that  now,  in  the 
matter  of  the  Church  of  Antioch,  a  new  Synod  has  been 
assembled  at  Saint  Peter,  that  is,  in  S.  Peter's  Church  in 
Eome;  and  at  the  same  time  makes  mention  of  the  acts  of 

1  Liberat.  Breviar.  I.e.  p.  150 ;  Niceph.  Callisti  Hist.  Ecd.  lib.  xvi.  c.    7  ; 
Baron,  ad  ann.  484,  n.  34. 

s  In  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  1050  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  827. 
4  In  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  1139 ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  354. 
8  Pagi,  ad  ann.  485,  n.  6. 
iv.  3 


violence  of  which  Acacius  has  made  himself  guilty  since  his 
deposition.  From  this  it  is  clear  that  the  letter  in  question 
belongs  not,  as  Valesius  supposed,  to  the  Synod  of  the  year 
484,  but  to  that  of  the  year  485.1  Finally,  we  also  learn 
from  the  subscription  of  this  letter  to  the  Orientals,  that  this 
Synod  of  the  year  485  was  visited  by  more  than  forty  bishops. 

In  this  letter  it  is  mentioned  twice  that  the  Pope  had 
sent  the  Defensor  Tutus  to  Constantinople  with  the  sentence 
of  deposition  pronounced  on  Acacius.  The  manner  in  which 
the  Synod  speaks  of  this  shows  that  they  were  then  unaware 
how  thoroughly  Tutus  had  abused  the  confidence  reposed  in 
him.2  Later  on  he  had  gone  so  far  as  to  let  himself  be 
corrupted  by  Acacius,  had  entered  into  Church  communion 
with  him,  besides  betraying  the  secrets  of  Eome  to  him,  and 
giving  up  the  despatches  which  he  had  brought  with  him. 
Naturally  Pope  Felix  received  intelligence  of  this  through 
his  friends  at  Constantinople,  and  therefore,  at  a  new  Roman 
Synod,  at  what  date  we  are  not  quite  certain,  perhaps  about 
the  close  of  the  year  485,  he  pronounced  a  sentence  of  per- 
manent deposition  on  Tutus.  This  we  learn  from  his  letter 
ad  monachos  urbis  Constantinop.  et  Biihyn? 

In  the  year  485,  Bishop  Quintian  also  assembled  a  Synod, 
which  pronounced  the  deposition  of  Peter  Fullo.  From  this 
Synod  we  have  a  synodal  letter  of  Quintian's  to  Fullo,  with 
twelve  anathemas  appended,  namely,  those  which  had  been 
directed  against  Monophysitism,  Apollinarism,  and  Samosa- 
tenism,  particularly  also  against  the  addition  mentioned  to 
the  Trisagion,  and  its  intention  to  teach  that  the  triune  God 
had  suffered  for  us.4  This  Synod  is  mentioned  also  by  the 
Libellus  Synodicus,5  which,  however,  speaks  of  it  erroneously  as 
an  Alexandrian  Synod,  whilst  it  designates  Quintian  as 
eVtV/eoTro?  ' 'Aptcov\iav(av,  a  city  which  is  mentioned  nowhere 
else,  but  which,  Pagi  thinks,  must  refer  to  the  patriarchal 
see  of  Antioch  (ad  ann.  485,  n.  14). 

1  Cf.  Pagi,  I.e.  n.  7. 

8  Cf.  the  remark  of  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  1170. 

3  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  1068.     Cf.  Pagi,  ad  ann.  485,  n.  8,  and  Mansi,  t.  vii. 
p.  1170. 

4  In  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  1109  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  835  sqq. 

5  In  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  1179  ;  Hardouin,  t.  v.  p.  1530. 


Finally,  to  the  year  485  there  belong  also  two  Persian 
Synods,  of  which  we  have  received  information  through 
Assemani.1  One  of  these  was  held  at  Seleucia  by  the 
Metropolitan  Babmeus,  who  is  called  in  the  Acts  Catholicus, 
although  this  title  is  of  somewhat  later  origin.  The  other 
was  held  by  the  Metropolitan  Barsumas  of  Nisibis,  a  man  of 
Nestorian  tendencies.  The  latter  at  his  Synod  gave  per- 
mission to  priests  and  monks  to  marry  (even  after  consecra- 
tion, and  after  putting  off  their  vows),  and  ordained  that  no 
one  should  marry  his  stepmother,  or  sister-in-law,  or  should 
have  two  wives  at  once.  Moreover,  he  and  his  bishops  found 
fault  with  the  Catholicus,  because  he  had  given  leave  that 
women  should  enter  the  baptistery  and  look  on  at  baptisms, 
whereby  unchaste  occurrences  and  unallowed  marriages  had 
taken  place.  The  Catholicus,  on  the  other  hand,  forbade,  in 
his  Synod,  the  marriage  of  priests  and  monks ;  and  excom- 
municated Barsumas,  and  was  in  turn  excommunicated  by  him. 

SEC.  214.  Religious  Conference  at  Carthage,  A.D.  484. 

In  the  meantime  there  was  held  in  Africa,  if  not  a  Synod 
proper,  yet  an  unusually  numerous  and  important  assembly  of 
bishops.  Huneric,  king  of  the  Vandals,  son  and  successor  of 
Geiseric,  since  his  entrance  on  the  government,  A.D.  477,  had 
not  ceased  to  persecute  the  Catholics,  and  had  endeavoured 
by  all  means  of  craft  and  violence  to  obtain  a  victory  for 
Arianism,  which  he  and  his  people  professed.  To  this  end 
he  sent  out,  in  May  483,  a  circular  letter  to  Eugenius  of 
Carthage,  and  all  "  Homoousion "  bishops,  in  which  he  gave 
orders  that,  on  the  first  of  February  in  the  next  year,  they 
should  be  present  at  Carthage,  in  order  to  have  a  disputation 
with  his  "  venerable  "  bishops  on  the  Homoousion  faith,  and 
to  examine  whether  it  were  scriptural  or  not.2 

Eugenius  declared  that  he  was  willing  to  attend,  on  con- 
dition that  the  Catholic  bishops  from  the  other  side  of  the 
Mediterranean,  particularly  the  Church  of  Rome,  should  be 

1  Biblioth.  Oriental,  t.  iii.  pt.  ii.  p.  clxxvii.     Reprinted  by  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p. 
1170sqq.    Cf.  art  "Barsumas  of  Nisibis"  in  Wetzer  and  Welte,  Kirchenlexicon. 
*  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  1141 ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  857. 


allowed  to  take  part  in  the  disputation,  as  the  controversy  would 
have  reference  to  the  Catholic  creed,  and  not  to  the  special  creed 
of  the  African  Church.1  He  made  this  stipulation  particu- 
larly, because  the  bishops  who  were  not  under  Vandal  rule 
could  express  themselves  with  much  greater  freedom  than  he 
and  his  colleagues  who  were  living  under  that  heavy  oppression. 
King  Huneric  made  the  scornful  reply :  "  When  you  make  me 
master  of  the  whole  world,  then  what  you  want  shall  be  done," 
that  is  to  say,  then  shall  the  bishops  be  summoned  from  the 
whole  world.  To  this  Eugenius  returned  a  befitting  answer ; 
but  instead  of  complying,  Huneric  did  the  reverse,  and  drove 
into  exile  those  Orthodox  bishops  of  Africa  who  were  pointed 
out  to  him  as  peculiarly  learned  and  eloquent.2 

At  last  the  first  of  February  arrived,  and  no  fewer  than 
461  Catholic  bishops  had  appeared  at  Carthage,  as  is  shown 
by  the  list  of  them  which  is  still  extant.3  Most  of  them 
were  from  Africa  itself ;  some  were  from  the  islands  of  Sar- 
dinia, Majorca,  and  Minorica,  which  belonged  to  the  Vandal 
kingdom.  Huneric  had  some  of  the  ablest  of  the  Catholic 
bishops  separated  from  the  others  and  arrested,  and  Bishop 
Lsetus  of  Neptis  even  killed,  in  order  to  strike  terror  into  the 
others.  The  place  of  meeting  was  fixed  by  their  opponents  ; 
but  the  Catholics  immediately  selected  from  their  number  ten 
speakers,  so  that  the  Arians  should  not  be  able  to  say  that 
they  were  clamoured  down  by  the  Catholic  bishops  by  reason 
of  their  majority.  There  were,  however,  no  real  debates.  At 
the  very  beginning  the  Arian  Court  Bishop  Cyrila  placed  him- 
self in  the  president's  chair,  and  the  Catholic  bishops  in  vain 
appealed  against  this,  and  demanded  an  impartial  president. 
When  the  royal  notary  gave  to  Cyrila  the  title  of  patriarch, 
the  Orthodox  asked  "  by  whose  authority  Cyrila  had  assumed 
the  title  of  patriarch  "  ;  and  when  the  Catholic  spectators  made 
a  noise  at  this,  they  were  driven  with  blows  from  the  place  of 

1  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  1142  ;  Hardouin,  I.e. ;  Victor  Vitensis  (Victor  of  Vita),  DC 
persecutione  Afric.  lib.  ii.  in  the  Biblioth.  Max.  PP.,  Lugd.  t.  viii.  p.  682  ;  also 
in  Baron,  ad  ann.  483,  n.  93  sqq. 

2  Victor  Vitensis,  I.e. 

a  In  Mansi,  t.  vii.  1156 ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  869.  Sixteen  sees  were  then 
made  empty,  or  the  bishops  sent  into  exile,  so  that  the  Vandal  kingdom  counted 
447  Catholic  bishops. 


assembly.  Eugenius  complained  of  violence  ;  but,  in  order  to 
get  at  the  chief  matter  in  dispute,  the  Catholic  speakers  re- 
quested Cyrila  to  open  the  proceedings,  and  to  lay  before  them 
the  points  which  were  to  be  discussed.  Cyrila  replied,  Nescio 
latine,  and  persisted  in  his  objection  to  the  speaking  of  Latin, 
although  he  was  answered  that  he  had  elsewhere  made  copious 
use  of  this  language.  Victor  Vitensis  maintains  (I.e.  p.  683) 
that  Cyrila  had  met  the  Catholic  bishops  with  better  prepara- 
tion and  more  boldly  than  he  had  expected  ;  but  that  they  had 
taken  the  precaution  of  drawing  up  a  confession  of  faith  in 
writing,  of  which  he  gives  a  copy  (lib.  iii.),  and  which  is  also 
given  in  Mansi  and  Hardouin.1  Tillemont  shows  (I.e.  p.  797) 
that,  in  the  subscription  of  this  formula,  xii.  Kal.  Mart,  instead 
of  Mai.  must  be  read. 

Huneric  now  put  forth  an  edict,  on  February  24,  in  which 
he  blamed  the  assembled  Orthodox  bishops  that  they  had  not 
either  at  the  first  or  the  second  day  of  sitting  (so  that  the 
assembly  lasted  two  days),  proved  the  ffomoousion  from 
Holy  Scripture,  although  they  had  been  challenged  to  do  so ; 
but,  on  the  contrary,  had  occasioned  a  rising  and  an  uproar 
among  the  people.  He  therefore  gave  orders  that  their 
churches  should  remain  closed  until  they  should  come  and 
take  part  in  the  disputation.  Further,  the  laws  which  the 
Roman  Emperors,  misled  by  the  bishops,  had  promulgated 
against  heretics,  should  now  be  directed  against  the  main- 
tainers  of  the  ffomoousion.  They  were  therefore  forbidden 
to  hold  meetings  anywhere ;  they  were  not  to  have  a  church 
in  any  city  or  village;  they  must  not  take  part  in  any 
baptism,  ordination,  or  the  like ;  and  in  case  they  continued 
in  their  perverseness,  they  should  be  punished  with  exile. 
Moreover,  the  laws  of  the  Eoman  Emperors  against  heretical 
laymen  should  now  be  in  force,  and  they  should  be  deprived 
of  the  right  to  sell,  to  leave  by  will,  and  to  succeed  to  legacies, 
inheritances,  trusts,  etc. ;  and,  moreover,  those  who  occupied 
dignities  and  offices  should  be  stripped  of  them,  and  should  be 
declared  infamous.  All  books  in  which  they  defended  their 
error  (the  Nicene  doctrine)  were  to  be  burnt.  Anyone,  how- 
ever, who  should  return  from  his  error  by  the  1st  of  June,  was 
1  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  1143 ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  857. 


to  be  free  from  all  punishments.  Finally,  all  the  churches,  to- 
gether with  church  property,  in  the  whole  kingdom,  were  to 
be  made  over  to  the  true,  that  is,  the  Arian  bishops  and  priests.1 
Besides  this,  King  Huneric  had  the  Catholic  bishops  pre- 
sent in  Carthage  sought  for  in  their  lodgings,  deprived  of 
their  property,  their  servants,  and  horses,  and  driven  out  of 
the  city.  Whoever  should  receive  them  was  to  have  his  house 
burnt.  Later  on  they  were  all  excommunicated ;  the  majority 
(302)  being  sent  to  different  parts  of  Africa,  where  they  had 
to  live  as  country  people  without  any  spiritual  functions 
(Huneric  did  with  them  as  Luther  with  Carlstadt),  whilst 
forty-six  were  sent  to  the  island  of  Corsica,  where  they  had  to 
hew  wood  for  the  royal  ships.  Victor  adds  that  twenty- 
eight  had  escaped,  one  had  become  a  martyr,  one  a  confessor, 
and  eighty-eight  had  died  earlier.2 

SEC.  215.  Synod  in  tlie  Lateran  at  Rome,  A.D.  487  or  488. 

Soon  after  Huneric  perpetrated  other  outrages.  He  died, 
however,  in  485,  and  his  nephew  Guntamund  recalled  from 
exile  all  the  Catholics  with  the  exception  of  the  bishops.  Of 
the  latter  only  Eugenius  of  Carthage  was  allowed  to  return  and 
hold  divine  service  again.  Many  of  those  who,  during  the 
time  of  Huneric's  persecution,  had  fallen  away  from  the 
Orthodox  faith  and  gone  over  to  the  Arians,  now  prayed  to 
be  taken  back  into  the  Church.  As,  however,  the  African 
bishops,  being  in  exile,  were  unable  to  hold  a  Synod  on  this 
subject,  Pope  Felix  took  up  the  cause  of  the  African  Church 
and  held  a  Council  in  Borne,  early  in  the  year  487,  in  order 
to  establish  the  conditions  under  which  the  fallen  should  be 
taken  back  to  Church  communion.3  Baronius  and  Binius  main- 
tain that  the  Africans  themselves,  and  particularly  the  fallen, 
had  petitioned  the  Pope  to  make  regulations  in  this  matter.4 

1  Victor  Vit.  lib.  iv.  I.e.  p.  687  sqq.;  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  1153  sqq.;  Hardouin,  t. 
ii.  p.  867  sqq. ;  Baron,  ad  ann.  484,  n.  54  ;  Tillemont,  t.  xvi.  p.  562. 

2  Victor  Vit.  I.e.  p.  693  ;  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  1164  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  875. 
Cf.  Tillemont,  t.  xvi.  p.  565  sqq. 

3  The  Acts  of  the  Synod  are  found  in  Mansi,  t.  vii.  pp.  1171  sqq.  and  1056, 
and  in  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  pp.  877  and  832. 

4  Baron,  ad  ann.  487,  n.  2  ;  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  1174. 

LATERAN  SYNOD  AT  ROME,  A.D.   487   OR  488.  39 

The  still  extant  synodal  letter  tells  us  that  this  Roman  Synod 
was  held  on  the  13th  of  March  under  the  consulate  of  Flavius 
Boethius,  that  is,  in  the  year  487,  in  the  Basilica  Constan- 
tiniaua,  that  is,  in  the  Lateran  Church,  under  the  presidency 
of  Pope  Felix,  and  in  the  presence  of  thirty-nine  Italian 
and  four  African  bishops,  together  with  many  priests  and 

Felix  opened  the  Synod  with  the  statement  that  there 
were  unfortunately  in  Africa  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons 
who  had  fallen  away  from  the  faith  in  the  time  of  persecu- 
tion, and  had  been  rebaptized  by  the  Arians.  Resolutions 
had  to  be  taken  in  reference  to  these,  and  he  would  now  let 
his  own  opinion  on  the  subject  be  known.  Upon  this  the 
deacon  Anastasius  read  the  sketch  of  an  ordinance  addressed 
to  all  bishops,  which  was  forthwith  approved  by  the  Synod,  and 
is  of  the  following  content :  "  1.  If  anyone  has  in  the  manner 
described  been  rebaptized,  it  must  first  of  all  be  ascertained 
whether  he  has  been  so  voluntarily  or  under  compulsion. 
Such  an  one  must  undertake  works  of  penance,  fasts,  and 
lamentations,  since  God  sends  His  grace  only  to  the  humble. 
But  all  are  not  to  be  treated  in  the  same  manner,  and  those 
most  harshly  to  whom  ministration  in  the  house  of  God  has 
been  confided,  that  is,  the  clergy.  2.  Bishops,  priests,  and  lay- 
men, who  receive  rebaptism  voluntarily  or  compulsorily,  must 
remain  in  penance  until  the  end  of  their  life,  without  being 
allowed  to  participate  in  the  public  prayers,  even  as  catechu- 
mens, and  only  in  articulo  mortis  are  they  to  be  admitted  to 
lay  communion.1  3.  In  regard  to  the  (lower)  clergy,  monks, 
virgins  dedicated  to  God,  and  laymen,  the  prescriptions  of  the 
Nicene  Council  (respecting  the  fallen)  are  to  be  observed. 
Those  who  without  compulsion  gave  themselves  to  be  re- 
baptised,  if  they  show  deep  repentance,  shall  be  placed  among 
the  audientes  for  three  years,  for  seven  years  as  pcenitcntes  (in 
the  third  degree)  shall  be  placed  under  the  imposition  of 
hands  of  the  priests,  and  for  two  years  (In  the  fourth  degree  of 
penitence)  shall  be  excluded  from  the  sacrifice.2  If  they  die 

1  On  the  Communio  laica,  cf.  Binterim,  Denkwurdigkeiten  Bd.  iv.  Thl.  3,  S. 
501  ff.,  and  Bd.  vii.  Thl.  1,  S.  63. 

8  Cf.  c.  11  of  Nica?a,  in  vol.  i.  p.  416. 


earlier,  the  Viaticum  is  not  to  be  refused  to  them.1  4.  Boys 
under  age,  whether  clerics  or  laymen,  as  also  girls  under  age, 
shall  for  some  time,  in  the  third  degree  of  penitence  receive 
the  imposition  of  hands  and  then  shall  be  admitted  to  com- 
munion. 5.  If  anyone  should  be  admitted  to  communion, 
because  of  sickness,  before  the  expiration  of  his  time  of  pen- 
ance, and  afterwards  recover  his  health,  he  shall,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  Nicene  prescription  (can.  13),  complete  the 
still  remaining  time  of  his  penance  among  the  penitents  of 
the  fourth  degree.  6.  Catechumens  who  have  allowed  them- 
selves to  be  baptized  by  heretics,  shall  spend  three  years 
among  the  audientes,  and  after  that  shall  receive  (not  a  new 
baptism,  but)  the  imposition  of  hands.2  7.  The  lower  clerics, 
monks,  and  laymen,  who  have  received  rebaptism  under  com- 
pulsion, shall  do  penance  for  three  years ;  but  bishops,  priests, 
and  deacons,  even  when  they  have  acted  under  compulsion,  must, 
as  has  been  said,  remain  their  whole  lifelong  in  penance.  8.  All 
who  have  received  rebaptism  from  heretics,  or  who  as  catechu- 
mens have  received  first  baptism,  are  prohibited  from  becoming 
clerics.  9.  No  bishop  or  priest  must  receive  a  penitent  from  a 
strange  diocese  without  a  testimonial  from  his  bishop  or  priest.3 
As  this  letter  is  dated  March  15,  under  the  consulate  of 
Dynamius  and  Siphidius,  and  therefore  in  the  year  488, 
whilst  the  Roman  Synod  was  held  in  March  of  the  former 
year,  we  must  assume  either  that  a  whole  year  had  elapsed 
before  the  actual  sending  out  of  the  particular  copies  of  the 
synodal  letter,  or  that  the  date  placed  at  the  head  of  the 
synodal  Acts,  Flavio  Boethio,  V.C.  Cons.,  is  erroneous,  and  it 
should  be  read  P.C.  (i.e.  post  consulatum)  Flavii  Boethii, 
which  would  refer  to  the  year  488.4 

SEC.  216.  Synods  in  Persia  and  at  Constantinople. 

The    Synod    of    the    Nestorians    at    Seleucia,   A.D.    489, 

1  Cf.  c.  13  of  Nicaea,  in  vol.  i.  p.  419. 

2  Cf.  c.  14  of  Nicaea,  in  vol.  i.  p.  420,  and  what  is  there  said  on  heretical 
baptism,  p.  477. 

3  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  1171  sqq.  and  p.  1056  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  pp.  877  and  882. 

4  Cf.  Tillemont,  t.  xvi.  p.  592  ;  Remi  Ceiller,  I.e.  p.  624  ;  and  the  remark  of 
Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  1174. 


scarcely  deserves  mention.  It  was  occasioned  by  the  fact 
that  the  already  named  Bishop  Barsumas  of  Nisibis  had 
accused  the  Overmetropolitan  Acacius  of  fornication.  The 
latter  proved,  in  a  chamber  adjoining  the  place  of  meeting 
of  the  Synod,  that  the  accused  was  a  eunuch,  whereupon 
Barsumas  was  anathematised  as  a  slanderer.1  Three  other 
Nestorian  Synods  in  Persia  are  mentioned  by  Simeon  Beth- 

In  the  year  489  the  Patriarch  Acacius  of  Constantinople 
died,  and  his  successor,  Fravitas  or  Flavitas,  lost  no  time  in 
removing  practically  the  existing  division  between  Eome  and 
Constantinople.  He  addressed  a  very  courteous  letter  to 
Pope  Felix,  assuring  him  of  his  orthodoxy.  In  a  similar 
sense  the  Emperor  Zeno  also  wrote  again  to  the  Pope,  and 
for  the  conveyance  of  the  two  letters  Flavitas  sent  two  clerics 
and  several  monks  as  legates  to  Eome.  They  were  received 
with  great  friendliness,  but  Felix  would  not  commit  himself 
to  a  formal  reception  of  Flavitas  into  communion,  because  the 
deputies  from  Constantinople  were  unable  to  promise  that  he 
would  strike  the  name  of  his  predecessor  Acacius  from  the 
diptychs.  Yet  the  Pope  addressed  friendly  letters  both  to 
the  Emperor  and  to  the  new  patriarch.3  Flavitas,  however, 
died  before  receiving  it,  and  was  succeeded  by  Euphemius,  a 
decided  adherent  of  Orthodoxy,  who,  as  we  are  told  by  Victor 
of  Tununum,  assembled  a  Synod  at  Constantinople  in  the 
year  492,  and  confirmed  the  decrees  of  Chalcedon,  whilst  the 
Emperor  Anastasius,  Zeno's  successor,  was  a  declared  friend 
of  Monophysitism.4 

The  Libellus  Synodicus  adds  that  Euphemius  sent  the  Acts 
of  his  Synod  to  the  Pope.5  What  is  certain  is,  that  he 
sought  most  earnestly  for  restoration  of  communion  with 
Eome,  but  that  the  Pope,  both  Felix  and,  after  his  death, 
Gelasius  (since  the  beginning  of  492)  persevered  in  requiring 
that  the  name  of  Acacius  should  be  struck  from  the  diptychs, 

1  Assemani,  BiUioth.   Oriental,  t.  iii.  pt.  ii.  p.  clxxx  ;  also  in  Mansi,  t.  vii. 
p.  1173. 

2  Assemani,  I.e.  p.  178  ;  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  143. 
8  Mansi,  t.  vii.  pp.  1097  and  1100. 

4  Victor  Tunun.,  Chronicon  in  Galland.  Biblioth.  PP.  t.  xii.  p.  226. 

5  Mansi,  t.  vii.  pp.  1180  and  1175  ;  Hardouin,  t.  v.  p.  1530. 


which  Euphemius  declared  that  he  could  not  venture  to  do. 
A  further  understanding  between  Eome  and  Constantinople 
was  rendered  impossible  by  the  deposition  of  Euphemius  in 
496.  The  Emperor  Anastasius  now  assembled  a  Synod  at 
Constantinople,  which,  at  his  will,  gave  an  approval  to  the 
infamous  Henoticon,  deposed  Euphemius,  and  in  his  place 
raised  Macedonius  to  the  throne  of  the  capital  city.  So  we 
are  told  by  Victor  of  Tununum.1 

SEC.  217.   The  two  Roman  Synods  under  Pope  Gelasius. 
The  Gelasian  Decree  de  libris  recipiendis. 

A  great  controversy  has  arisen  concerning  the  Roman 
Synod  under  Pope  Gelasius,  which  is  said  to  have  drawn  up 
the  earliest  Index  prohibitorum.  In  the  printed  collections 
of  the  Acts  of  the  Councils  we  find  this  Gelasian  Index  with 
the  superscription :  "  A  Eoman  Council  of  seventy  bishops, 
under  the  presidency  of  Pope  Gelasius,  and  under  the  Consuls 
Asterius  and  Preesidius,  i.e.  in  the  year  494,  published  this 
decree  for  the  distinction  of  genuine  and  apocryphal  books." 
The  date  here  given  is  assailed  by  several  not  unimportant 
considerations.  In  the  oldest  and  best,  and  in  nearly  all  of 
the  manuscripts  of  the  Gelasian  decree,  no  consuls  are  speci- 
fied ;  and  Pagi  and  Ballerini,  supporting  themselves  upon  this, 
have  no  hesitation  in  referring  the  drawing  up  of  this  Index 
to  the  last  year  of  Gelasius,  A.D.  496  ;  and  in  this  they  are 
confirmed  by  the  fact  that  the  Carmen  Paschale  of  Sedulius, 
which  was  first  published  in  the  year  495,  is  mentioned  and 
commended  in  the  Index.2 

Others  solve  the  difficulty  in  another  manner,  and  assume 
that  the  mention  of  the  Carmen  Paschale  is  one  of  the  additions 
which  Pope  Hormisdas,  as  we  shall  see,  made  to  the  Gelasian 
Decree.3  As,  however,  the  best  and  oldest  manuscripts  of  the 
Gelasian  Decree  have  this  passage,  we  must  decide  against  the 
latter  theory  and  in  favour  of  that  of  Pagi  and  Ballerini. 

1  In  Gallamlius,  I.e.  p.  226. 

2  Pagi,  ad  ann.  494,  n.  2-7  iucl. ;  Bailer,  edit.  Opp.  S.  Leonis,  t.  iii.  p.  clvi  n. 
ix.  ;  and  in  the  notes  of  the  Ballerini  in  Noris,  Opp.  omnia,  t.  iv.  p.  927  sq. 

3  Migne,  Dictionnaire  des  Conciles,  t.  ii.  p.  599. 


This  brings  us  to  the  second  controversy  in  reference  to 
our  Index,  as  to  its  authorship.  In  some  ancient  manuscripts 
this  is  ascribed  to  Pope  Damasus,  who  lived  more  than  one 
hundred  years  before  Gelasius,  and  died  A.D.  384.  One  of 
these  is  a  very  old  MS.  of  the  Collectio  Dionysii  Exigui,  and 
in  the  Cresconian  collection.1  We  may  add  that  this  is  sup- 
ported by  the  Codex  Frisingensis,  which  is  nearly  a  thousand 
years  old.2 

Still  most  of  the  oldest  and  best  MSS.  assign  the  com- 
position to  Pope  Gelasius,  and  in  particular  the  three  excellent 
codices  discovered  last  century,  the  Luccensis,  Vaticanus,  and 
Florentinus,  which  were  edited  by  Mansi,  Fontaninus,  and 
Blanchinus.3  In  addition  to  which  Pope  Gelasius  is  named 
as  author  by  the  most  ancient  ecclesiastical  writers  who 
mention  the  Index.  To  the  same  effect  is  the  testimony  of  a 
document  of  the  Abbey  of  S.  Riquier  of  the  year  832  ;  and 
further,  Abbot  Ansegis  of  Fontenelle  in  833,  also  Lupus  of 
Ferrieres,  Hincmar  of  Reims,  and  Pope  Nicholas  I.4  To  this 
it  must  be  added  that  our  Index  contains  a  great  deal  which 
refers  to  a  later  period  than  that  of  Damasus.  It  refers,  e.g., 
to  the  (Ecumenical  Synods  of  Ephesus  and  Chalcedon,  and  to 
the  writings  of  S.  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  of  S.  Chrysostom  and 
S.  Augustine,  of  Pope  Leo  I.,  Prosper  of  Aquitaine,  etc.,  so 
that  a  considerable  portion  of  it  cannot  possibly  be  the  work 
of  Damasus.  This,  however,  by  no  means  excludes  the  sup- 
position that  certain  parts  of  the  Gelasian  Decree  may  belong 
to  Pope  Damasus,  and  indeed  the  most  recent  investigations 
made  by  Dr.  Thiel 5  and  Dr.  Friedrich  6  have  established  with 
certainty  that  the  first  third  of  the  Gelasian  Decree  comes 
down  from  the  time  of  Damasus.  These  two  scholars  have  also 

1  Cf.  Pagi,  ad  ann.  494,  n.  2.  2  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  154. 

3  Reprinted  in  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  153  sqq. 

4  Cf.  Bemi  Ceiller,  Histoire  des  auteurs  saerts,  t.  xv.  p.  631  ;  Migne,  Diction- 
naire  des  Candles,   t.   ii.   p.   596  ;  Fabricii  Biblioth.  Orieca,  t.  xii.  p.  658,  ed. 

5  De  Decretali  Gdasii  Papas  de  recipiendis  et  not  recipiendis  libris,  etc., 
cdidit  Dr.  Andreas   Thiel,  as.    Theol.  in  regio  Lyceo  Hosiano  Brunsbergensi 
Prof.  p.  o.  1866. 

8  Friedrich,   Drei  unedirte   Concillen  aus    der    Merovingerzeit    niit    einem 
Auhang  liber  das  Decretum  Gelasii,  Bamberg  1867. 


settled,  with  an  approach  to  certainty,  the  original  text  of 
the  Gelasian  Decree,  Friedrich  using  for  that  purpose  a  codex, 
belonging  to  the  Munich  Library,  of  the  eighth  or  ninth 
century,  one  of  the  most  ancient  existing  manuscripts  of  this 
Decree.  The  text  of  this  Munich  codex  agrees  in  all  essential 
points  with  that  which  Dr.  Thiel  had  established  by  a  com- 
parison of  thirty-eight  other  MSS.,  that  of  Munich  being 
unknown  to  him. 

Thiel  divides  the  whole  Decree  into  five  parts :  (1)  De 
Spiritu  Sancto,  (2)  De  Canone  Scripturse  Sacrae,  (3)  De  Sedibus 
patriarchalibus,  (4)  De  Synodis  oecumenicis,  (5)  De  libris 
recipiendis.  Of  these  five  parts  the  first  three,  which  con- 
stitute only  the  first  chapter  of  the  Decree,  belong  to  Pope 
Damasus ;  whilst  the  last  two  parts,  which  are  much  more 
comprehensive  than  the  first  three,  and  constitute  the  second, 
third,  and  fourth  chapters  of  the  Decree,  proceed  from  Pope 
Gelasius.  As,  however,  the  third  successor  of  Gelasius,  Pope 
Hormisdas  (t523),  renewed  this  Decree,  and  added  several 
appendices,  it  came  to  pass  that  several  manuscripts  named 
him  as  author  of  the  whole. 

The  division  which  belongs  to  Pope  Damasus  and  a 
Roman  Synod  under  him  begins  with  the  words,  "  Dictum 
est :  prius  agendum  est  de  Spiritu  septiformi,  qui  in  Christo 
requiescit,"  and  then  the  biblical  expressions,  "  Spiritus 
sapientiae,  consilii,"  etc.,  are  explained.  To  this  is  added  an 
explanation  of  the  expressions  referring  to  Christ,  "  Dominus, 
Verbum,  Filius,  Pastor,  Leo,"  etc.,  and  the  whole  concludes 
with  the  sentence,  "  Nominato  itaque  Patre  et  Filio  intelligitur 
Spiritus  Sanctus,"  etc. 

That  it  should  be  necessary  to  place  at  the  head  of  a 
Decree  an  explanation  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit  given 
by  a  Synod  and  a  Pope,  suits  quite  well  the  times  of  Pope 
Damasus,  but  not  so  well  those  of  Gelasius. 

The  second  section  (again  by  Damasus)  gives  the  canon 
of  the  Bible,  and  at  the  close  are  placed  "  Joannis  apostoli 
epistola  i. ;  Alterius  Joannis  presbyteri  epistolae  ii."  This, 
again,  is  not  suitable  for  Gelasius  in  whose  time  the  three 
Epistles  were  quite  definitely  assigned  to  John  the  evangelist, 
but  is  quite  suitable  to  Damasus,  whose  friend,  S.  Jerome,  as 


is  well  known,  assigned  only  the  first  of  the  three  Johannean 
Epistles  to  the  apostle,  and  the  two  others  to  the  so-called 
Presbyter  John.1 

The  third  section,  by  Pope  Damasus,  treats  of  the  primacy 
of  Eome  and  of  the  patriarchal  Churches,  and  in  particular 
declares :  "  Eomana  ecclesia  nullis  synodicis  constitutis 
ceteris  ecclesiis  praelata  est,  sed  evangelica  voce  Domini  et 
Salvatoris  nostri  primatum  obtinuit."  At  the  same  time, 
the  opinion,  which  has  found  many  advocates  in  the  ancient 
and  the  later  Church,  that  Peter  and  Paul  had  not  been 
martyred  in  the  same  year  (uno  tempore),  was  declared 
heretical2  Then  the  Eoman  Church  is  designated  and 
declared  to  be  the  first  see  of  Peter,  and  "non  habens 
maculam  neque  rugam  nee  aliquid  hujusmodi " ;  the  second 
see  to  be  "  apud  Alexandriam,"  dedicated  in  the  name  of  Peter 
and  of  his  disciple,  the  evangelist  Mark;  and  the  third  that  of 
Antioch,  where  Peter  "  priusquam  Komam  venisset,  habitavit." 

To  this  third  section  of  Damasus,  Pope  Gelasius  added 
the  two  additional  sections,  "  De  Synodis  oecumenicis,"  and 
"  De  libris  recipiendis,"  chapters  2,  3,  and  4  of  the  whole 
Decree.  In  the  first  it  is  said :  "  Sancta,  i.e.  Romana, 
ecclesia  post  illas  veteris  et  novi  testamenti,  quas  regulariter 
suscipimus,  etiam  has  suscipi  non  prohibet  Scripturas,  id 
est:  Sanctam  Synoduin  Nicsenam  .  .  .  sanctam  synodum 
Ephesinam  .  .  .  sanctam  synodum  Chalcedonensem."  .  .  . 
As  we  see,  and  have  remarked  above  (vol.  ii.  p.  373),  the 
second  (Ecumenical  Synod  is  not  named,  but  Pope  Hormisdas 
in  his  copy  added  this,  and  this  is  the  first  important 
addition  belonging  to  him.  The  second  he  places  after  the 
notice  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  in  these  words :  "  Sed  et 
si  qua  sunt  concilia  a  sanctis  patribus  hactenus  instituta, 
post  horum  auctoritatem  et  custodienda  et  recipienda  et 
decernimus  et  mandamus."  To  the  Synod  of  Nicaea  also  he 
had  added :  "  In  qua  Arius  haereticus  condemnatus  est." 

1  Hieronymi  Catalog.  Script,  eccl.  cc.  9  and  18. 

3  Windischmann  endeavours,  in  his  Vindicise  Petrinse  (p.  66),  to  explain 
this  as  follows:  "Gelasium  magis  perversam  hsereticorum,  qui  ea  traditione 
abutcbantur,  intentionem  reprehendisse  credimus,  quam  quod  ipsam  illam 
traditionem  hsereticam  esse  censuerit," 


In  chapter  3  the  "  libri  recipiendi "  of  the  Church  Fathers, 
and  in  chapter  4  the  "  libri  apocryphi  qui  non  recipiuntur," 
are  denned,  and  here  all  those  books  which  the  Church  of 
Eome  rejects  are  designated  as  apocryphal,  whether  they  are 
inserted  surreptitiously  (properly  apocryphal)  or  are  genuine. 
Thus,  for  example,  the  writings  of  Tertullian  and  of  the 
Alexandrian  Clement  are  named  "  apocrypha,"  in  the  same 
way  as  the  "  Actus  Andreas  apostoli "  and  "  Thomae  apostoli," 
etc.  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  among  the  "  apocrypha  " 
the  "  Opuscula  Tascii  Cypriani"  are  placed,  whilst  the 
"  Opuscula  b.  Caecilii  Cypriani  martyris  et  Carthaginensis 
episcopi"  are  the  first  among  the  commended  books  (c.  3). 
So  these  "  Apocrypha  Cypriani "  must  either  have  been  books 
falsely  attributed  to  S.  Cyprian,  or  we  must  understand  by 
Tascius  Cyprianus  another  than  S.  Cyprian,  whose  name  was 
also  Tascius.  It  is  further  remarkable  that  the  Church 
history,  "  Historia  Eusebii  Pamphili,"  is  in  chapter  4  placed 
among  the  "  apocrypha,"  whilst  in  chapter  3  it  is,  together 
with  the  Chronicle  of  Eusebius,  placed  among  the  "  libri 
recipiendi,"  with  the  note :  "  Quamvis  in  primo  narrationis 
suae  libro  tepuerit  (he  has  been  lukewarm)  et  post  in  laudibus 
atque  excusatione  Origenis  schismatici  unum  conscriperit 
librum,  propter  rerum  tarn  singularum  notitiam,  quae  ad 
instructionem  pertinent,  usquequaque  non  dicimus  renuendos." 
Finally,  "  nonnulla  opuscula  "  of  Origen,  "  quae  vir  beatissimus 
Hieronymus  non  repudiat,"  are  recognised,  but  the  rest, 
together  with  their  author,  are  rejected.  The  "  Canones 
Apostolorum,"  the  "  Pastor  Hermae,"  and  the  writings  of 
Arnobius,  Lactantius,  and  Cassian,  are  also  numbered  among 
the  "  apocrypha."  The  variations  in  this  section,  which  are 
the  work  of  Hormisdas,  are  of  slighter  significance.1 

Immediately  after  the  Eoman  Synod  just  noticed,  the 
collections  of  Councils  place  a  second,  held  at  Rome  under 
Gelasius,  which  took  place  in  March  (not  in  May)  495,  and 
therefore  should  properly  be  placed  before  the  other.  Under 
the  presidency  of  the  Pope,  there  were  present  forty-five 

1  Less  exact  reports  of  the  Gelasian  Decree  are  found  in  Mansi,  t.  viii.  pp. 
146-172  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  pp.  937-942 ;  and  in  the  Corp.  Jur.  Can,  c.  3, 
Dist.  xv. 


other  bishops,  together  with  many  priests  and  deacons,  and 
two  laymen  of  distinction.  The  occasion  of  this  Synod  was 
the  petition  for  readmission  to  the  Church  of  Bishop  Misenus, 
who  had  been  one  of  the  unfaithful  legates  of  Pope  Felix 
(see  above,  p.  30).  His  petition  was  presented  at  the  first 
session  of  the  Synod,  on  the  8th  of  March  495  ;  there  was, 
however,  no  resolution  taken  in  the  matter,  and  Gelasius 
therefore  allowed  the  petition  to  be  read  anew  at  the  second 
session.  Misenus  was  now  also  permitted  to  appear  before 
the  Synod  in  person,  and  to  present  a  second  petition,  which 
was  also  read,  and  which  bears  the  date  of  March  13.  This 
is  probably  the  date  of  the  second  session,  since  we  need  not 
assume  that  a  long  interval  had  elapsed  between  this  and  the 
first  session,  March  8.  In  any  case  the  subscription  of  our 
Acts  gives  the  13th  of  May  (Hi  Idus  Maii)  as  the  date  of 
the  second  session,  but  Pagi  (ad  ann.  495,  n.  2),  and  others 
after  him,  have  supposed  that  this  is  a  mistake  for  Hi  Idus 

After  the  reading  of  the  two  petitions,  Pope  Gelasius 
addressed  the  Synod,  and  in  a  rather  long  speech  set  forth 
the  grounds  on  which  they  should  receive  Misenus  back  into 
the  Church,  and  not  drive  him  to  despair  since  he  had  shown 
such  deep  repentance,  arid  had  pronounced  anathema  on  all 
heresies  and  heretics ;  whilst  his  colleague  Vitalis,  who  had 
committed  the  same  fault  at  Constantinople,  had  died  in  the 
meantime,  and  on  account  of  his  sudden  death  could  no  longer 
be  reconciled  to  the  Church.  All  the  bishops  and  priests 
gave  their  full  approval  to  this  proposal  in  liveliest  acclama- 
tions, and  thus  Misenus  was  restored  to  favour.1  He  appears 
again  at  a  later  period  as  member  of  a  Koman  Synod, 
A.D.  499. 

SEC.  218.   The  last,  Synods  of  the  Fifth  Century. 

At  the  baptism  of  Chlodwig,  on  Christmas  Day  496, 
some  bishops  of  the  Frankish  kingdom  were  assembled  in 
S.  Martin's  Church  at  Reims,  as  we  learn  from  a  letter  of 
Bishop  Avitus  of  Vienne  to  Chlodwig,  and  from  a  letter  of 

1  The  Acts  in  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  177  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  941  sqq. 


Bishop  Nicetius  of  Trier  (Treves) ; l  but  their  meeting  is 
scarcely  to  be  regarded  as  a  Synod. 

We  are  told  of  a  Synod  at  Constantinople,  which  was 
held  in  the  year  497  or  498,  by  Victor  of  Tununum, 
Theophanes,  and  the  Libdlus  Synodicus,  but  unfortunately  the 
testimonies  are  not  clear,  nor  are  they  in  agreement. 
Theophanes  says  (ad  ann.  491  of  the  Alexandrian  =  498  of 
the  ordinary  reckoning) :  "  In  this  year  Bishop  Macedonius 
of  Constantinople,  by  the  advice  of  the  Emperor  (Anastasius), 
endeavoured  to  unite  with  himself  the  monasteries  of  the 
metropolis,  which  had  separated  (from  the  patriarch  and  the 
Henotickers)  on  account  of  the  Henoticon.  As,  however, 
there  was  no  result,  he  advised  the  Emperor  to  summon  a 
trvvoSos  evBijfAovo-a,  in  order  to  approve  of  the  good  decrees  of 
Chalcedon  (TO,  AcaXw?  Soy/iana-Owa),  and  this  was  done."2 

With  this  agrees  the  Libellus  Synodicus,  stating :  "  Mace- 
donius held  a  Synod,  which  confirmed  in  writing  the  decrees 
of  Chalcedon,  but  from  fear  of  the  Emperor  Anastasius 
passed  over  the  Henoticon  in  silence."  3 

But  the  very  reverse  seems  to  be  found  in  Victor  of 
Tununum,  since  he  writes,  ad  ann.  497  :  "  Macedonius  Con- 
stantinopolitanus  episcopus  synodo  facta  condemnat  eos  qui 
Chalcedontnsis  decreta  synodi  suscipiunt,  et  eos  qui  Nestorii  et 
Eutychis  defendunt." 4  Macedonius  appears  here  plainly  as  a 
heretic,  who  indeed,  on  the  one  hand,  rejected  the  Nestorian  and 
Eutychian  doctrines,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  refused  to  accept 
the  Synod  of  Chalcedon,  that  is,  the  positive  part  of  it,  its 
declaration  of  faith.  As,  however,  the  Synod  had  also  a 
negative  part,  namely,  the  rejection  of  the  Nestorian  and 
Eutychian  doctrines,  Mansi5  thinks  that  we  can  reconcile 
the  testimonies  of  Theophanes  and  Victor  by  supposing  that 
the  former  understood  by  the  /caXtu?  Boyfjiana-devra,  not  all 
the  decrees  of  Chalcedon,  but  only  those  against  the  heretics, 
the  negative  part ;  and  that  Macedonius,  at  his  Synod,  con- 

1  Mansi,  t.  viii.  pp.  175  and  178. 

2  Theophanes,   Chronogr.  ed.  Bonn,    t.  i.  p.  218  sq.      Cf.   Pagi,  ad  ann. 
498,  n.  7. 

3  In  Hardouin,  t.  v.  p.  1530 ;  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  374. 

4  Galland.  I.e.  t.  xii.  p.  226,  8  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  199  sq. 


firmed  this,  which  was  a  principal  part  of  the  decrees,  but 
not  the  positive  part,  because  this  must  of  necessity  have 
condemned  the  Henoticon.  More  than  this  he  thinks  that 
Victor  of  Tununum  could  not  properly  say,  since  he  himself 
only  a  little  later  mentions  that  Macedonius  was  soon  after- 
wards deposed  by  the  Emperor  Anastasius,  because  he  would 
not  pronounce  anathema  on  the  Council  of  Chalcedon. 
With  such  a  disposition,  it  would  be  clear  that  Macedonius 
himself  could  not,  in  the  year  497,  have  pronounced  the 
rejection  of  all  parts  of  the  Synod  of  Chalcedon. 

This  seems  correct,  and  we  allow  that  in  this  manner 
a  harmony  may  be  established  between  Theophanes  and 
Victor ;  but  not  between  the  latter  and  the  Libellus  Synodicus. 
Besides,  there  must  still  remain  the  doubt  whether  Mace- 
donius could  have  believed  that  the  monks  of  Constantinople, 
particularly  the  Acoemetse,  who  were  strict  adherents  of  the 
Synod  of  Chalcedon,  would  be  reconciled  with  him  and  the 
Henoticans,  if  he  approved  of  only  one  part  of  the  Chal- 
cedonian  decrees,  and  expressly  rejected  the  other,  as  we 
must  suppose  from  the  testimony  of  Victor. 

Through  the  same  Victor  of  Tununum  we  learn  of  a 
further  Synod  at  Constantinople  in  the  year  499.  This  also 
falls  under  the  episcopate  of  Macedonius ;  Victor,  however, 
says  nothing  of  this  bishop  having  taken  part  in  it,  but  only 
relates  that  the  Emperor  Anastasius,  when  Flavian  was 
bishop  of  Antioch,  and  Philoxenus  was  bishop  of  Jerusalem, 
held  a  Synod  at  Constantinople,  which,  on  the  one  hand, 
anathematised  Diodorus  of  Tarsus  and  Theodore  of  Mop- 
suestia,  together  with  their  writings ;  and  on  the  other,  Theo- 
doret  of  Cyrus,  Ibas  of  Edessa,  Andrew  (of  Samosata), 
Eucherius  (Eutherius),  Quirus  (Cyrus),  John  (of  Antioch),  and 
all  who  accept  two  natures  and  two  forms  in  Christ,  together 
with  the  Koman  Bishop  Leo  and  his  tome  (his  famous 
letter  to  Flavian  of  Constantinople),1  and  also  the  Synod 
of  Chalcedon.2 

To  the  same  year  also  belongs  a  Roman  Synod,  which 
Pope  Symmachus  held  on  the  1st  of  March  499  in  the 

1  See  the  history  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  in  vol.  iiL 

2  Victor.  Tunun.  in  Galland.  I.e.  t.  xii.  p.  226. 

IV.  4 


Basilica  of  S.  Peter,1  and  at  which  seventy-two  bishops  were 
present.  Its  aim  was  to  take  precautions  that  at  future  papal 
elections  there  should  not  again  be  such  painful  divisions  and 
faction  fights  as  had  happened  on  the  former  occasion.  A  few 
days  after  the  death  of  Pope  Anastasius  ii..  on  the  22nd  of 
November  498,  Syminachus,  until  then  a  deacon  of  the  Roman 
Church,  a  native  of  Sardinia,  had  been  elected  Pope  in  the 
Basilica  of  Constantino  (i.e.  in  the  Lateran  Church).  But  on 
the  same  day  another  party  elected,  in  S.  Mary's  Church 
(Maria  Maggiore),  the  Archpresbyter  Lawrence,  and  in  fact 
the  imperial  commissioner,  the  Patrician  Festus,  had  brought 
about  this  election  by  a  great  expenditure  of  money,  in  the 
hope  that  Lawrence  might  be  inclined  to  accept  the  Henoticon 
of  Zeno.  Both  Symmachus  and  Lawrence  were  immediately 
consecrated ;  but  Symmachus  was  first,  and,  besides,  he  had  the 
majority  on  his  side.  People,  clergy,  and  senate  were  divided 
into  two  parties,  between  whom  it  came  not  unfrequently  to 
sanguinary  conflicts.  In  order  to  put  an  end  to  this  critical 
state  of  things,  the  two  parties  agreed  to  go  to  Eavenna,  and 
submit  the  controversy  for  decision  to  King  Theoderic,  the 
Ostrogoth,  who,  although  an  Arian,  was  then  master  of  Eome. 
This  was  done,  and  Theoderic  decided  that,  "  whichever  had 
been  first  ordained,  or  whichever  had  the  majority  on  his  side, 
should  possess  the  see  " ;  and  thus  his  judgment  was  in  favour 
of  Symmachus,  who  soon  after  summoned  the  Synod  in  ques- 
tion. So  Anastasius  relates,2  and  in  part  also  Theodorus 
Lector,3  who  are  followed  by  Theophanes4  and  Nicephorus 
Callisti;5  only  that  the  latter  speak  merely  of  the  Synod 
summoned  in  the  year  501  by  King  Theoderic,  whilst  they 
are  silent  respecting  that  of  the  year  499.  But  that  this  was 
convoked  by  Pope  Symmachus  and  not  by  the  King,  its  Acts 
repeatedly  declare  quite  expressly.6 

1  On  the  date,  cf.  Pagi,  ad  ann.  499,  n.  2. 

2  In  Baronius,  ad  ann.  498,  n.  3,  4  ;  and  ad  ann.  499,  n.  10  ;  Pagi,  ad  ann. 
500,  n.  9. 

3  111  Valesius'  edition  of  the  Greek  Church  historians,  lib.  ii.  p.  560,  ed.  Mog. 
after  the  Church  History  of  Theodoret. 

4  Theophanes,  Chronographia,  t.  i.  p.  221. 
8  Nicephorus,  lib.  xvi.  c.  35. 

6  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  230  sq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  957  sqq. 


At  the  opening  of  this  Roman  Synod,  Archdeacon  Ful- 
gentius  made  an  address  to  Pope  Symmachus,  pointing  out 
that  the  Synod  which  he  had  convoked  from  all  parts  of  Italy 
had  assembled,  and  the  Pope  should  now  communicate  the 
measures  which  should  be  taken  for  preserving  the  Church 
from  injury,  and  for  the  establishment  of  its  peace.  All 
present  supported  this  request  with  acclamation,  and  Pope 
Symmachus  explained  how  it  was  that,  in  spite  of  its  being 
winter,  he  had  assembled  the  bishops,  and  that  the  formation 
of  a  fixed  rule  for  the  ordination  of  a  Roman  bishop  was 
necessary,  in  order  to  avoid,  for  the  future,  all  divisions,  agita- 
tions, and  risings  of  the  people.  The  bishops  again  gave  their 
approval,  and  the  papal  notary  vEmilian  read  the  following 
statute : — 

1.  If  a  priest  or  other  cleric,  during  the  lifetime  of  the 
Pope,  and  without  his  previous  knowledge,  should  venture  to 
put  down  his  signature  for  the  future  election,  or  promise  a 
voting  paper,  or  give  an  assurance  on  oath,  or  promise  a  vote, 
or  attend  at  private  meetings  for  the  purpose  of  holding  con- 
sultations and  taking  resolutions  on  this  subject,  he  shall  be 
deprived  of  his  office  and  of  Church  communion. — The  Synod 
gave  its  assent  with  loud  approval. 

2.  The  same  punishment  shall  be  inflicted  on  anyone  who 
is  proved,  in  the  lifetime  of  a  Pope,  to  have  canvassed  for  the 
succession,  or  has  made  attempts  in  that  way. — Again  all  the 
bishops  declared  their  assent. 

3.  Should  the  Pope  (which  God  forbid !)  die  unexpectedly, 
and  so  be  unable  to  make  any  provision  for  the  election  of  a 
successor,1  then,  if  the  collected  clergy  elect  one  unanimously, 
he  shall  be  consecrated.     If,  however,  as  often  happens,  the 
opinions  and  votes  are  divided,  the  judgment  of  the  majority 
shall  prevail.     And  every  elector  who,  having  bound  himself 
by  a  promise,  has  not  given  his  vote  freely  in  the  election, 
shall  be  deprived  of  his  spiritual  office. 

4.  Whoever  brings  to  knowledge  a  violation  of  this  ordin- 

1  The  Pope  did  not  indeed  designate  his  successor,  but  frequently  recom- 
mended &  clergyman,  who  was  then  generally  elected.  Cf.  Barouius,  ad  ann.  499, 
n.  8  ;  and  Binius  in  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  238,  not.  <j.  In  other  places,  however, 
such  recommendation  was  not  allowed.  See  above,  sec.  211. 


ance,  even  if  he  was  himself  a  participator  in  the  offence,  shall 
not  only  remain  unpunished,  but  shall  even  be  rewarded. — 
Again  they  all  signified  their  approval ;  and  after  Symmachus 
had  addressed  a  few  closing  words  to  the  members,  they  sub- 
scribed to  the  number  of  seventy-two  bishops,  including  the 
Pope,  sixty -nine  priests,  and  six  deacons.1 

Among  the  priests  who  signed  stands  first  the  Arch- 
presbyter  Coelius  Lawrence,  the  very  man  who  had  been 
raised  by  the  schismatical  party  to  be  antipope.  He  had 
made  submission,  and  had  expressed  this  indubitably  by  adding 
to  his  subscription :  "  Subscripsi  et  consensi  synodalibus 
constitutis,  atque  in  hac  me  profiteer  manere  sententia." 
That  he  received  the  bishopric  of  Nocera  in  consequence  of 
this  submission,  and  indeed  "  intuitu  misericordiae,"  Anastasius 
tells  us,  but  without  suggesting  so  definitely  as  Baronius 
imagined  that  this  had  been  decided  by  our  Synod.  In  this 
respect  Pagi  has  already  with  propriety  combated  him  ;2  but 
he  also  was  mistaken  when  he  attributed  this  advancement  of 
Lawrence  to  a  Eoman  Synod  of  the  year  500,  since  no  such 
Synod  met  in  that  year,  as  the  Bollandists3  and  Mansi4 
showed,  so  that  Lawrence  was  promoted  to  the  bishopric  of 
Nocera  either  by  the  Synod  of  499  or  immediately  after- 
wards by  Pope  Symmachus.5 

But  scarcely  was  this  peace  built  up  when,  in  the  follow- 
ing year,  it  was  overthrown,  and  the  exasperation  of  both 
parties  found  expression  in  acts  of  great  violence,  so  that  new 
Synods  became  necessary  in  order  to  restore  peace  to  the 
Church.  These  all,  however,  fall  into  the  sixth  century,  and 
thus  belong  to  the  next  book.  We  must,  however,  turn  our 
attention  to  a  plenary  or  patriarchal  Council  of  the  Nestorians 
in  Persia,  which  was  held  in  the  second  year  of  King  Zamasches 
(Giamasabas),  i.e.  in  the  year  499,  and  under  the  presidency 
of  the  Patriarch  Babseus.  At  an  earlier  Persian  Synod  we 
met  with  a  Babu  or  Babuaeus  as  overmetropolitan  of  Seleucia- 

1  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  230  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  957  sqq.    Mansi  has  critical 
remarks  on  these  subscriptions,  I.e.  p.  305  sq. 

2  Pagi,  ad  ann.  499,  n.  3  ;  and  ad  ann.  500,  n.  8  and  9. 

z  Acta  Sanctorum,  die  19  Julii,  p.  639,  in  the  Vita  S.  Symmachi. 
*  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  303. 
6  See  below,  sec.  220. 


Ctesiphon,  and  saw  him  in  violent  conflict  with  the  Metropoli- 
tan Barsumas  of  Nisibis  (see  above,  sec.  213).  Soon  afterwards, 
in  the  year  485,  Babu  was  taken  off  in  consequence  of  political 
suspicion  which  Barsabas  had  excited  against  him,  and  Acacius 
was  raised  to  succeed  him.  He  excommunicated  Barsabas  and 
his  adherents,  and  thus  arose  a  schism  among  the  Nestorians, 
which  lasted  on  even  after  the  death  of  Barsumas.  When, 
however,  Acacius,  in  the  year  498,  was  succeeded  by  Babaeus, 
who  was  up  to  this  time  a  layman  and  married,  the  latter  took 
measures  for  the  removal  of  the  schism,  and  the  Synod  con- 
voked by  him  in  the  year  499  did,  in  fact,  reconcile  the 
parties,  and  renewed  not  only  the  previous  precedence  of  the 
see  of  Seleucia-Ctesiphon,  but  raised  it  to  patriarchal  dignity, 
the  possessor  of  which  should  bear  the  title  Catholicus ;  in 
this  way  separating  Seleucia  from  the  patriarchate  of  Antioch, 
to  which  it  had  hitherto  belonged.  Moreover,  the  Synod 
repeated  the  permission  given  at  an  earlier  period,  that  all 
clerics,  even  bishops  and  monks,  might  live  in  monogamy, 
and  ordered  the  regular  holding  of  provincial  and  patriar- 
chal Synods.  The  former  were  to  be  celebrated  once  a 
year,  and  the  latter  every  four  years  in  the  month  of 

SEC.  219.  Religious  Conference  in  the  Kingdom  of  Burgundy, 

at  Lyons. 

We  close  the  twelfth  book  with  an  assembly  which, 
without  being  a  Council  in  the  proper  sense,  yet  deserves 
to  be  mentioned  here.  This  is  the  religious  conference 
which  was  held  at  Lyons  between  the  orthodox  and  Arian 
bishops  of  Burgundy,  with  the  permission  of  Gundobald,  the 
Arian  king  of  Burgundy,  and  in  his  presence.  That  it  took 
place  on  the  feast  of  S.  Justus  (who  had  been  bishop  of 
Lyons  in  the  second  half  of  the  fourth  century)  and  on  the 
following  day,  therefore  on  the  2nd  and  3rd  of  September, 
is  expressly  stated  in  the  Acts  of  this  Collatio,  first  edited 

1  In  Assemani,  Biblioth.  Oriental,  t.  iii.  pt.  i.  p.  429  ;  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  239  sq. 
Cf.  Wiltsch,  KircM.  Statistik,  Bd.  i.  S.  215,  and  the  article  "Barsumas"  in  the 
Kirchenlexicon  of  Wetzer  and  Welte. 


by  d'Achery  in  his  Spidlegium,  t.  v.  p.  110.1  The  year, 
however,  is  doubtful,  and  scholars  waver  from  499  to  501. 
It  is  a  decided  error  of  Baronius  to  place  it  in  A.D.  494 
(ad  ann.  494,  n.  68).  Pagi  decided  for  501  (ad  ann.  501, 
n.  4),  and  many  have  followed  him ;  but  others  prefer  the 
year  499.2  A  quite  certain  result  is  no  longer  attainable; 
but  we  believe  that  we  must  decide  for  the  year  499,  and 
shall  give  our  reasons  below.  Archbishop  Stephen  of  Lyons 
had,  for  this  assembly,  invited  many  bishops  to  the  festival 
of  S.  Justus,  and  prominent  among  those  who  came  were 
Avitus  of  Vienne,  JLonius  of  Aries,  Apollinaris  of  Valence, 
and  the  bishop  of  Marseilles.  His  name,  according  to  the 
Histoire  litttraire  de  la  France,  is  supposed  to  have  been 

They  all  betook  themselves  first  to  Sardiniacum,  i.e. 
Savigny,  in  Burgundy,  where  the  King  resided,  in  order  to  pay 
their  respects  to  him ;  and  Avitus  of  Vienne,  though  he  was 
first  neither  in  age  nor  in  rank,  yet,  on  account  of  his  learning 
and  personal  importance,  became  spokesman,  and,  after  the 
salutations  were  over,  proposed  to  the  King  the  holding  of  a 
religious  conference,  in  order  to  discuss  which  was  the  true 
faith.  Gundobald  replied  :  "  If  your  faith  is  the  true  one,  why 
do  not  your  bishops  restrain  the  King  of  the  Franks  (Chlodwig) 
from  proclaiming  war  upon  me,  and  making  a  union  with  my 
enemies  ?  When  a  man  covets  what  is  not  his  own,  the  true 
faith  is  not  with  him."  '  Avitus  answered  very  discreetly : 
"We  know  not  why  the  Prankish  King  acts  in  such  a 
manner;  but  Holy  Scripture  tells  us  that  kingdoms  often 
perish  because  they  forsake  the  law  of  God,  and  that  whoever 
fights  against  God  (or  the  true  faith)  will  himself  be  with- 
stood in  turn.  But  if  you,  with  your  people,  return  to  the 
law  of  God,  then  God  will  also  give  you  peace  again."  The 
King :  "  How  ?  I  do  acknowledge  the  law  of  God,  but  three 
Gods  I  will  not  admit."  Thereupon  Avitus  defended  the 
orthodox  faith  against  the  reproach  of  tritheism,  and  again 
prayed  for  the  holding  of  a  religious  conference,  embracing, 
with  the  other  bishops,  the  King's  knees  whilst  he  made  his 

1  Printed  in  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  241  sqq. ;  and  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  963  sqq. 
-  So  the  Histoire  lUUraire  de  la  France,  t.  ii.  p.  679. 


request.  Gundobald  raised  them  graciously,  and  promised 
them  an  answer. 

The  answer  came  next  day,  when  the  King,  who  himself 
had  gone  to  Lyons,  called  Avitus  and  Archbishop  Stephen 
to  him  again,  and  declared  to  them :  "  Your  wish  shall  be 
fulfilled ;  for  my  bishops  are  ready  to  prove  that  no  one  can 
be  coeternal  and  consubstantial  with  God."  He  immediately 
required  that  some  speakers  should  be  selected  from  each  side, 
and  that  the  conference  should  not  be  held  in  public,  so  that 
no  disturbances  should  arise.  The  time  of  meeting  he  fixed 
for  the  following  day,  the  festival  of  S.  Justus,  the  place  the 
royal  residence. 

The  orthodox  bishops  spent  the  night  in  prayer  at  the 
grave  of  S.  Justus,  and  the  Lessons  appointed  for  the  day 
offered  them  a  gloomy  prospect ;  for  they  treated  of  the 
hardening  of  Egypt  (Ex.  vii.),  and  of  the  blinding  of  the 
people  (Isa.  vi.).  Next  day  they  betook  themselves  to  the 
residence  with  many  priests  and  deacons,  and  also  some 
Catholic  laymen,  particularly  two  royal  officers  of  high  rank, 
Placidus  and  Lucanus.  In  like  manner  did  the  Arians. 
Avitus  was  the  representative  speaker  of  the  orthodox  and 
Bonifacius  of  their  opponents,  and  the  admirable  speech  of 
Avitus  (the  original  document  calls  it  Ciceronian),  in  which  he 
proved  the  orthodox  faith  from  the  Scriptures,  made  such  an 
impression  that  Bonifacius,  instead  of  bringing  forward  argu- 
ments to  meet  him,  could  only  take  refuge  in  abuse,  e.g.  that 
the  Catholics  were  polytheists.  Remarking  the  consternation 
of  his  party,  the  King  broke  up  the  first  session,  and  declared 
that  Bonifacius  should  answer  Avitus  on  the  following 

When  the  Catholics  assembled  at  the  appointed  time  next 
day  in  the  royal  palace,  Aredius,  one  of  the  highest  officials  of 
Gundobald,  tried  to  persuade  them  to  go  back,  because  the 
King  had  no  fondness  for  such  controversies.  But  Archbishop 
Stephen  knew  that  Aredius,  although  himself  a  Catholic, 
favoured  the  Arians,  and  rejected  his  suggestion.  Gundobald, 
however,  greeted  the  comers,  and  conversed  for  some  time 
with  Avitus  and  Stephen  on  the  subject,  that  his  own  brother 
Godegisel  had  been  stirred  up  against  him  by  the  King  of  the 


Franks.1  Godegisel  was  king  of  the  second  half  of  the  Bur- 
gundian  kingdom,  with  the  chief  cities  of  Geneva  and  Besan^on. 
The  bishops  replied  that,  if  Gundobald  became  united  in  faith 
with  Chlodwig,  a  political  union  could  more  easily  be  brought 
about,  and  they  would  be  ready  to  use  their  best  exertions  to 
bring  it  about.  Without  answering  this  the  King  opened  the 
new  second  conference,  and  Avitus  was  again  the  first  speaker, 
most  powerfully  refuting  the  reproach  of  polytheism  which 
Bonifacius  had  cast  the  day  before.  When  he  had  finished, 
and  it  became  Bonifacius'  turn  to  speak,  as  before,  he  could 
say  nothing  but  general  insulting  reproaches,  and  at  the  same 
time  shouted  in  such  a  violent  manner  that  he  became  quite 
hoarse,  and  was  unable  to  go  on  speaking.  No  other  Arian 
ventured  to  take  his  place  ;  and  as  the  King  got  up  angrily 
at  Boniface,  Avitus  made  one  other  proposal,  that  a  miracle 
should  decide,  and  they  should  agree  to  go  together  to  the 
grave  of  S.  Justus,  and  interrogate  this  dead  saint  as  to  the 
true  faith.  The  Arians,  however,  declared  that  this  would  be 
a  sacrilege,  which  had  been  punished  in  the  case  of  Saul 
(1  Sam.  xxviii.  llff.);  besides,  the  Holy  Scriptures  spoke 
more  powerfully  for  them  than  any  calling  up  of  spirits. 

Thus  ended  the  business.  The  King  took  Avitus  and 
Stephen  with  him  into  his  chamber,  and  begged  them  to  pray 
for  him.  He  was  shaken,  but  he  was  not  won ;  and,  whilst 
many  of  his  subjects  returned  to  the  orthodox  Church  in  con- 
sequence of  this  colloquy,  he  himself  remained  in  the  snares 
of  the  heresy.  "  Quod  Pater  eum  non  traxerat,"  says  the 
record,  "  non  potuit  venire  ad  Filium."  King  Gundobald,  how- 
ever, remained  in  friendly  correspondence  with  Avitus,  and 
we  permit  ourselves,  on  account  of  its  importance,  to  bring 
forward  one  point  from  it  which  is  calculated  to  throw  some 

1  According  to  this,  the  war  between  Gundobald  on  the  one  side,  and  Chlod- 
wig and  Godegisel  on  the  other,  had  not  yet  properly  begun,  and  it  is  plain 
that  Godegisel  was  still  alive.  As,  however,  Marius  Aviticensi  declares  that 
Gundobald  killed  his  brother  Godegisel  under  the  Consuls  Hypatius  and 
Patricius,  i.e.  in  the  year  500,  our  religious  conference  must  necessarily  be 
placed  before  the  year  500.  Pagi  acts  very  inconsistently  when,  on  the  one 
hand,  he  records  the  statement  of  Marius  Aviticensis  (ad  ann.  500,  n.  10).  and 
places  the  death  of  Godegisel  in  the  year  500  ;  whilst,  on  the  other  hand,  he 
removes  the  religious  conference  to  the  year  501. 


light  on  the  ecclesiastical  term  Missa.  The  King  once  asked 
Avitus  the  sense  of  the  passage  Mark  vii.  11,  12,  which,  in 
the  Latin  translation  of  the  time,  ran  as  follows :  "  Vos 
auttim  dicitis,  si  dixerit  homo  patri  suo  aut  matri,  Corban  tibi 
prof uerit,  et  jam  non  missum  facitis  eum  quidquam  facere  patri 
aut  matri,"  i.e.  "  Ye,  however,  say,  If  a  man  says  to  his  father 
or  his  mother :  Corban  will  profit  thee  (i.e.  What  I  offer  in 
the  temple,  will  also  be  a  benefit  to  thee),  ye  allow  him  to  do 
nothing  more  for  his  father  or  his  mother."  Gundobald  took 
special  offence  at  the  expression  "  Non  missum  facitis  " ;  and 
Avitus  remarked  in  a  letter  in  reply  : 1  "  '  Non  missum  facitis  ' 
is  just  as  much  as  '  non  dimittis  '  (i.e.  ye  set  him  not  free,  ye 
allow  him  not  to  do  anything  for  his  father),  and  in  the 
churches,  and  also  in  the  halls  of  judgment,  it  is  customary,  when 
the  people  are  dismissed,  to  call  out '  Missa  est.'  '  In  ecclesiis 
palatiisque  sive  prsetoriis  missa  fieri  pronunciatur,  cum  populus 
ab  observatione  dimittitur.' "  We  see  from  this  that  at  that 
time  the  formula  "  Missa  est "  or  "  Missa  fit "  was  used  also  at 
the  close  of  the  sitting  of  courts.  We  learn  still  further 
through  Sirmond,  in  his  learned  notes  on  the  letters  of 
Avitus,  that  the  expression,  "  Ite,  missa  est,"  was  in  ancient 
times,  and  partly  in  the  Middle  Ages,  used  not  merely  at  the 
holy  Sacrifice,  but  also  at  other  religious  services ;  and  for  this 
reason  also  Matins  was  called  Missce  Matutince,  and  Vespers, 
Missce  Vespertince.3 

1  Galland.  Biblioth.  P.P.  t.  x.  p.  702. 

2  The  Vulgate  has  here  the  reading  specially  recommended  by  Avitus,  "non 
dimittis,"  instead  of  "non  missum  facitis." 

3  Cf.  can.  30  of  the  Council  of  Agde,  A.D.  506,  below,  sec.  220. 



SEC.  220.    The  Roman  Synods  under  Pope  Symmachus, 
A.D.  501-504. 

AT  the  opening  of  the  sixth  century  we  meet  with  a 
series  of  Eoman  Synods  under  Pope  Symmachus,  with 
reference  to  the  dates  of  which  two  different  chronological 
systems  have  been  set  up,  the  one  by  Pagi  in  his  criticisms 
to  the  Annals  of  Baronius  (ad  ann.  499,  n.  3  ;  ad  ann.  500, 
n.  7-9  ;  ad  ann.  501,  n.  2  ;  ad  ann.  502,  n.  4 ;  ad  ann.  603, 
n.  2—1 1 ;  ad  ann.  504,  n.  2),  the  other  in  the  year  1725  by  the 
Bollandist  P.  J.  Bapt.  Sollerius  (in  his  Life  of  S.  Symmachus 
in  Ada  SS.  t.  iv.  Julii  die  19  Julii,  p.  639).  Following 
preconceived  opinions,  Pagi  has  misplaced  the  natural  order 
of  these  Synods,  whilst  the  Bollandist  held  fast  to  Anastasius, 
Theodorus  Lector,  and  other  ancients,  and  has  attained  to 
greater  accuracy.  His  theory  was  confirmed  a  few  years 
later  by  a  newly  -  discovered  anonymous  Vita  Symmachi, 
which  was  composed  by  a  contemporary  of  Pope  Symmachus, 
and  was  published  complete  for  the  first  time  in  the  year 
1732  by  Joseph  Blanchini,1  whilst  somewhat  earlier  his 
uncle,  Francis  Blanchini,  had  put  forth  only  fragments  of  it 
in  the  third  volume  of  his  edition  of  Anastasius.  By  this 
means  it  became  possible  for  the  learned  Mansi  to  establish 2 

1  In  his  edition  of  pseudo-Athanasii  Expositio  in  Symbolum  Apostolorum, 
and  in  the  fourth  volume  of  Blanchini's  edition  of  Anastasii  Vitce  Pontificum, 
p.  Ixix  printed  also  in  Muratori,  Rerum  Italic.  Scriptores,  t.  iii.  pt.  ii.  p.  45  sq. 

2  In  his  notes  to  Baronius,  and  in  his  Colledio  Conciliorum,  t.  viii.  p.  303  sq. 


ROMAN   SYNODS   UNDER   POPE  SYMMACHUS,  A.D.   501-504.      59 

several  chronological  points  still  more  accurately  than  the 
Bollandist  had  done,  and  all  the  learned  now  follow  him 
almost  unanimously.  But  even  Mansi  has  left  sufficient  room 
for  others  to  glean  after  him,  so  that  in  the  following  pages 
it  will  be  seen  that  on  many  points  it  was  necessary  to  depart 
from  him  and  to  strike  out  a  way  of  our  own. 

First  of  all,  we  must  hold  fast  the  fact  that  no  Eoman 
Synod  was  held  in  the  year  500.  That  which  Pagi  specifies  as 
an  act  of  such  a  Synod,  namely,  the  removal  of  the  submissive 
Antipope  Lawrence  to  the  bishopric  of  Nocera,  was  either 
decreed  by  the  Synod  of  March  499,  described  above,  or 
soon  afterwards  by  Pope  Symrnachus  alone.  The  former 
view  has  recently  been  maintained  by  Jaffe*  in  his  Eegesta 
Pontificum  (p.  62);  the  Bollandist,  on  the  other  hand  (I.e.  p. 
638,  n.  23),  is  more  in  favour  of  the  other  theory;  and  the 
vague  manner  in  which  the  original  documents  state  the 
matter  would  admit  of  either  supposition.  The  anonymous 
author  of  the  Vita  Symmachi,  already  mentioned,  represents 
the  affair  as  if  this  Pope  and  his  opponent  Lawrence  had 
brought  their  case  before  the  royal  tribunal  (that  of  the 
Ostrogothic  King,  Theoderic  the  Great),  and  had  been  obliged 
to  appear  at  his  court,  where  Symmachus  had  prevailed 
through  money,  whilst  Lawrence  had  been  induced  by 
threats  and  promises  to  accept  the  bishopric  of  Nocera.  It 
must  not  be  forgotten,  in  reference  to  this  and  other  state- 
ments of  the  anonymous  author,  that  he  was  a  violent 
opponent  of  Symmachus  and  a  decided  adherent  of  Lawrence. 

Unfortunately  the  peace  of  the  Church  was  again  dis- 
turbed after  a  short  time,  so  that  in  Eome,  towards  the  end 
of  the  year  499,  and  in  the  year  500,  both  parties  came  to 
violent  and  even  to  sanguinary  conflicts.  In  this  matter  the 
friends  of  Lawrence  peculiarly  distinguished  themselves  by 
acts  of  violence ;  and  at  their  head  stood  two  laymen  of 
exalted  position,  the  Senators  Festus  and  Probus  (or  Pro- 
binus),  as  well  as  the  Deacon  Paschasius,  who  from  his  ascetic- 
ism had  a  reputation  for  holiness  among  the  people.  In 
their  passionateness  they  did  not  disdain  to  bring  their 
complaints  against  Symmachus  before  the  heretical  King 


It  is  rather  astonishing  that  none  of  the  Synods,  which 
had  soon  afterwards  to  examine  the  accusations  against  Sym- 
machus,  should  communicate  anything  more  precise  on  the 
offences  which  were  laid  against  the  Pope  for  punishment. 
Baronius  (ad  ann.  502,  n.  32)  thinks  that  this  resulted  from 
reverence  for  the  holy  see.  From  the  apology  which  Ennodius 
(f  521,  bishop  of  Pa  via)  drew  up  on  behalf  of  Symmachus, 
we  see,  however,  that  he  was  accused  of  adultery ; l  and  we 
learn  from  the  anonymous  Vita  Symmachi  that  he  was 
charged  with  many  crimina,  and,  because  he  had  not  cele- 
brated Easter  with  the  other  Christians,  he  was  summoned  to 
the  court  in  order  to  give  an  account  of  this  difference. 
The  King  is  said  to  have  ordered  him  to  remain  at  Ariminum ; 
but  that  here,  when  taking  a  walk,  he  had  once  seen  that 
those  women  with  whom  he  was  accused  of  having  sinned 
were,  at  the  command  of  the  King,  on  their  way  to  the 
residence.  Upon  this  it  is  said  that  he  fled  in  haste  to 
Rome,  and  shut  himself  up  in  S.  Peter's  Church ;  and  that 
his  clergy  had  fallen  away  from  him,  and  had  declared  to  the 
King  that  Symmachus  had  fled  without  their  knowledge. 
The  clergy  are  also  said  to  have  accused  him  of  squandering 
the  property  of  the  Church.  That  this  last  point  was  among 
the  accusations  against  Symmachus  we  shall  see  from  his  own 
address  at  his  fifth  Synod  on  the  6th  of  November  502  (see 
below  in  this  section). 

His  enemies,  clergy  and  senators,  now  petitioned  the 
King  to  send  a  Visitor  to  Rome,  who  should  examine  the 
accusations  against  Symmachus,  and  govern  the  Roman 
Church  until  the  issue  of  the  affair.  Theoderic  agreed  to 
this,  and  nominated  for  this  purpose  Bishop  Peter  of  Altino. 
We  learn  more  particularly  from  a  second  letter  of  Ennodius  2 
that  the  Visitor,  in  opposition  to  the  King's  commands,  did 
not  remain  impartial,  but  placed  himself  passionately  on  the 
side  of  the  opponents  of  Symmachus.  We  are  told  by  the 
anonymous  Vita  Symmachi  that  he  came  to  Rome  at  Easter, 

1  Cf.  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  284,  where  the  Libellus  Apologeticus  of  Ennodius  is 

2  From  the  Panegyric  to  King  Theoderic,  extracted  in  Baronius,  ad  ann. 
500,  n.  3  sqq. 

ROMAN   SYNODS   UNDER   POPE  SYMMACHUS,  A.D.   501-504.      61 

and  it  is  added,  which  for  our  purpose  is  much  more  import- 
ant, that  at  the  command  of  the  King  a  Synod  was  held  in 
Rome  immediately  after  Easter,  in  order  to  allay  the  strife  in 
the  Church.  That  the  Easter  of  the  year  5  0 1  is  here  meant, 
we  learn  from  an  edict,  dated  August  8,  501,  addressed  by 
the  King  to  the  bishops,  who  had  remained  in  Rome  after  the 
close  of  this  Synod. 

We  have  seen  that  the  first  Synod  for  the  removal  of  the 
new  schism  was  held  under  Symmachus  in  the  year  499,  so 
that  the  Synod  just  described  is  to  be  reckoned  the  second, 
and  must  have  been  so  reckoned  by  his  contemporaries,  other- 
wise Ennodius  could  not  have  designated  that  Synod  for  which 
he  wrote  an  apology  on  behalf  of  Symmachus  as  the  fourth 
(see  below,  in  this  sec.).  This  ancient  manner  of  reckoning, 
which  was  forsaken  by  others,  we  will  again  retain.  We 
find  intelligence  on  this  Synod  (a)  in  the  Acts  of  the  later 
assembly  of  October  23,  501 ;  (b)  in  some  letters  from 
and  to  King  Theoderic ;  and  (c)  in  the  anonymous  Vita 
Symmachi;  only  the  latter  throws  together  several  Synods 
which  were  held  soon  after  each  other  on  the  same  matter, 
and  treats  them  as  only  one, — a  confusion  which  is  over- 
looked by  Mansi 

From  the  first  of  these  three  sources  we  learn  that  our 
Synod  was  held  in  the  Basilica  Julii  at  Rome,  and  that 
bishops  from  liguria,  ^Emilia,  and  Venetia  were  present. 
They  immediately  declared  that  the  right  of  convoking  a 
Synod  belonged  to  the  Pope,  and  not  to  the  King,  because 
the  precedence  of  the  Apostle  Peter  had  fallen  to  the  see 
of  Rome,  and  because,  in  accordance  with  the  command  of 
the  Lord,  the  Councils  had  conceded  to  that  see  a  peculiar 
distinction  in  the  Church,  so  that  the  occupant  of  that  see 
was  not  to  be  judged  by  his  inferiors.  For  the  pacification 
of  the  bishops  the  King  let  them  know  that  Symmachus  had 
also  agreed  to  the  convoking  of  this  Synod,  and  he  had  the 
papal  letter  on  the  subject  laid  before  them. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  business  the  Pope  himself 
appeared  in  the  assembly  and  explained  that  he  was  grateful 
to  the  King  for  its  being  called,  that  he  saw  in  it  the  fulfil- 
ment of  his  own  wish,  and  that  he  himself  accorded  to  the 


Synod  the  authority  necessary  for  the  examination  of  the  matter. 
At  the  same  time,  he  hoped  that  the  Visitor,  who,  in  opposition 
to  religion  and  the  rules  and  ordinances  of  the  Fathers,  had 
been  demanded  by  a  portion  of  the  clergy,  or  by  some  of 
the  laity,  should  be  immediately  removed  by  the  assembled 
bishops,  and  that  there  should  without  delay  be  restored 
to  him,  the  Pope,  all  that  he  had  lost  through  his  enemies, 
and  that  the  bishop  of  so  exalted  a  city  should  be  replaced  in 
his  previous  position.  Then,  and  not  before,  he  would  reply 
to  the  accusations  brought  against  him.  To  the  majority  of 
the  bishops  this  seemed  not  unfitting ;  but  the  Synod  did  not 
venture  to  take  any  resolution  without  the  assent  of  the 
King.  Theoderic,  however,  gave  order  that  Symmachus  must 
first,  and  before  he  should  be  reinstated  in  all  the  property  of 
the  Church,  answer  the  accusation  of  his  enemies.  As  the 
Pope  would  not  agree,  this  Synod  remained  without  result.1 

In  agreement  with  this,  although  much  more  brief,  is  our 
third  original  document,  the  Vita  Symmachi,  if  we  rightly 
understand  its  text,  which  in  this  place  is  certainly  somewhat 
corrupt,  which  relates  that  a  portion  of  the  bishops  and 
senators  (so  these  also  were  at  the  Synod)  were  unwilling 
to  place  everything  in  the  power  of  Symmachus,  that  is,  to 
restore  immediately  to  him  the  property  of  the  Church,  which 
he  demanded ;  and  that  (by  others)  it  was  declared,  that  the 
Koman  bishop  could  be  judged  by  no  one,  even  if  he  were 
guilty  of  such  crimes  as  those  of  which  Symmachus  was 

From  the  second  source,  finally,  from  the  already  mentioned 
letter  of  King  Theoderic  of  August  8,  501,  we  see  that  by 
this  time  several  bishops  had  left  Eome  without  giving  a 
decision,  and  that  the  rest  appealed  to  the  King,  and  requested 
him  to  hold  a  new  Synod  in  his  residence  at  Eavenna.  In 
his  answer,  which  was  addressed  to  Lawrence  of  Milan, 
Marcellinus  of  Aquileia,  and  Peter  of  Eavenna,  as  the  heads 
of  the  Synod,  he  praises  them  and  their  colleagues,  that  they 
had  not,  like  the  others,  in  a  thoughtless  manner,  left  the 
city  without  the  permission  of  the  King.  He  said  he  should 

1  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  247  sqq  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  967  sq. 

2  In  Muratori,  I.e.  p.  46. 

ROMAN   SYNODS   UNDER   POPE   SYMMACHUS,  A.D.   501-504.      63 

bring  together  a  new  Synod  on  the  1st  of  September,  by 
means  of  which  the  subject  in  suspense  might  be  settled  by 
general  resolution,  and  that  the  Synod  should  be  at  Rome,  as 
he  had  reasons  for  not  complying  with  the  wish  of  the  bishops 
in  regard  to  Ravenna.  In  case,  however,  peace  and  tran- 
quillity should  not  be  restored  by  means  even  of  the  new 
Synod,  he  would  put  aside  all  his  other  business  and  come 
himself  to  Rome.1 

In  a  second  letter  of  VI.  Kal.  Sept.  (August  27)  of  the 
same  year,2  the  King  again  required  of  the  bishops  who  had 
been  summoned  to  the  Synod,  to  restore  the  peace  of  the 
Church  in  Rome.  He  said  he  had  placed  all  things  in  their 
hands.  He  had  also  sent  the  royal  house  stewards  Gudila 
and  Bedeulphus,  together  with  Arigernus,3  to  Rome,  in  order 
to  manage  that  Bishop  Symmachus  should  appear  before  the 
Synod.  They  would  give  him  adequate  security  to  enable 
him  to  come  over  to  the  other  side  of  the  city  and  appear 
before  the  Synod.4 

As  first  and  chief  source  of  information  respecting  the 
new  Synod,  held  in  Rome,  September  1,  501,  the  third  under 
Symmachus,  we  employ  the  Acts  of  the  following  or  fourth 
Synod,  which  have  already  proved  most  serviceable  to  us 
in  reference  to  the  second  Synod.  We  learn  from  these 
that  the  bishops  met  in  the  Basilica  of  the  Holy  Cross  of 
Jerusalem,  called  also  the  Basilica  Sessoriana  after  the  former 
owner  of  the  place,  and  that  the  Synod  was  under  the  influ- 
ence of  the  enemies  of  Symmachus,  who  repeatedly  stirred  up 
tumults  against  him.  In  this  document  a  double  wrong  is 
mentioned.  They  had  first  maintained  that  the  King  himself 

1  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  253  sq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  971  sq.  This  letter  is  dated, 
"  Sub  die  VI.  Idus  Augusti,  Rufo  Magno  Fausto  Avieno  V.  C.  Cos."  Mansi,  by 
erroneously  inserting  a  comma,  makes  it  appear  that  this  means  two  consuls, 
whereas  it  means  only  the  one  Western  consul  for  the  year  501.  The  consul  for 
the  East  in  the  year  501  was  Fl.  Probus. 

-  In  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  254  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  972  sq. 

1  That  this,  and  not  Conzatiernus,  is  the  right  reading,  and  that  Arigeruus 
was  actually  Major  domus,  is  clear  from  the  Relatio  Episcoporum  ad  Regem  in 
Mansi,  I.e.  p.  256  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  973. 

4  The  Pope  lived  in  S.  Peter's  ;  but  the  new  Synod  was  held  in  the  Church 
of  Ss.  Croce  in  the  east  end  of  the  city,  not  far  from  the  Lateran  ;  so  that 
Theoderic  could  say  that  the  Pope  should  come  citra  urbem. 


had  got  to  know  that  the  Pope  was  guilty  ;  but  again  this 
statement  was  shown  to  be  untrue.  Besides  this,  they  had  in 
the  second  place  demanded  that  the  Pope's  own  servants 
(slaves)  should  be  brought  forward  as  witnesses  against  him, 
whereas  there  should  be  the  same  rule  for  ecclesiastical  as 
for  civil  trials,  that  slaves  should  not  be  allowed  to  appear 
against  their  masters. 

These  Acts  inform  us  further,  that  when  the  Pope 
appeared  to  defend  himself,  his  enemies  fell  upon  him  and 
his  attendants,  so  that  many  priests  were  wounded,  and  many 
would  have  been  killed  if  the  three  royal  stewards  had  not 
prevented  it,  and  conveyed  the  Pope  back  to  his  residence 
within  the  walls  of  S.  Peter's.1  This  occurrence  was  reported 
by  the  Synod  to  the  King,  and  the  Pope  was  requested  to 
appear  personally  for  the  second  time.  He  replied  that  he 
had  humbled  himself  at  first  to  clear  himself,  and  had  almost 
been  put  to  death ;  but  that  now  (he  would  appear  no  more 
and)  the  King  might  decide  concerning  what  was  right.2 

With  this  agrees  our  second  source,  a  letter  of  the  Synod 
to  the  King,  thanking  him  for  sending  the  three  stewards. 
In  this  the  bishops  say :  "  In  our  second  session 3  we  sent 
deputies  to  the  Pope,  so  that  he  might  appear  for  trial.  But 
he  answered :  '  At  the  beginning,  without  any  hesitation  I 
hastened  into  the  meeting,  and  placed  my  privileges  (of  not 
being  judged  by  others)  at  the  will  of  the  King,  recognised  the 
authority  of  the  Synod,  and  in  accordance  with  ecclesiastical 
rule  demanded  the  restitution  of  the  churches  and  the  pro- 
perty of  the  Church;  but  instead  of  my  request  being 
granted,  I  and  my  clergy  met  with  cruel  ill-treatment  (cru- 
deliter  mactatus  sum).  I  therefore  no  longer  submit  myself  to 
examination  by  the  Synod,  and  it  remains  for  God  and  the 

1  The  Church  of  the  Holy  Cross  of  Jerusalem  and  S.  Peter's  Church  (in  the 
extreme  north-west  corner  of  Rome)  are  the  most  remote  points  from  each 
other  in  Rome. 

2  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  249  sq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  968  sq. 

3  By  ex  secunda  synodo  the  second  session  of  the  third  Synod  is  meant,  as  is 
shown  by  the  context  and  by  comparison  with  the  contents  of  the  next  source. 
In  the  first  session  of  the  third  Synod,  Symmachus  had  appeared,  but  had  been 
maltreated,  and  conducted  back  to  his  residence  by  the  royal  stewards.     Later 
on,  in  the  second  session,  the  Synod  invited  him  to  appear  again,  but  he  came 

ROMAN   SYNODS  UNDER   POPE  SYMMACHUS,  A.D.   501-504.      65 

King  to  decide  my  case  in  the  future.'  For  this  reason  we 
sent  the  house-steward  Arigernus  to  him,  and  he  can  himself 
acquaint  you  with  the  answer  which  he  received  from  him. 
We  can  now  do  no  more.  According  to  the  canons,  all 
bishops  have  a  right  of  appeal  to  the  Pope ;  but  what  is  to  be 
done  when  the  Pope  himself  appeals  ?  We  cannot  pronounce 
his  condemnation  in  his  absence,  nor  can  we  declare  him  as 
guilty  of  obstinacy,  since  he  (at  first)  presented  himself  before 
the  judges,  and  especially  as  it  has  never  yet  happened  that 
a  Pope  was  tried  by  bishops.  We  have,  besides,  done  all 
that  was  possible  to  restore  peace  to  the  Church  in  Eome, 
and  have  exhorted  the  clergy  of  the  city  to  peace ;  but  they 
have  disregarded  our  wholesome  exhortation,  so  that  it  now 
remains  for  the  King  to  make  provision  for  the  peace  of  the 
Church.  Finally,  we  ask  permission  to  be  allowed  to  return 

The  nature  of  the  wholesome  admonition  referred  to, 
which  was  addressed  by  the  Synod  to  the  Eoman  clergy,  we 
learn  more  clearly  from  the  third  source,  the  author  of  the 
Vita  Symwiachi.  He  says  that  the  bishops  (aliquanti  episcopi 
only  according  to  him)  repeatedly  called  upon  the  clergy  who 
had  fallen  away  from  Symmachus  to  return  without  delay  to 
his  obedience ;  but  that  they  put  off,  and  required  that  Sym- 
machus should  either  clear  himself  of  the  charges  against  him 
or  be  deposed  from  his  spiritual  office.2 

The  King  was  indignant  with  the  Synod  for  not  having 
settled  the  controversy  in  hand,  and  for  having  (at  the  end  of 
their  letter)  even  passed  on  the  matter  to  him.  He  replied 
therefore,  on  the  1st  of  October  501,  that,  if  he  had  wished  to 
decide  the  controversy,  he  would  with  God's  help  have  estab- 
lished the  right,  and  so  have  given  peace  to  the  present  and 
to  the  succeeding  generation.  But  he  had  not  regarded  it  as 
his  business  de  ecclesiasticis  negotiis  aliquid  censere,  and  that 
therefore  he  had  convoked  the  bishops  from  different  pro- 
vinces and  given  over  the  whole  matter  to  them  for  decision. 
It  was  their  business  to  decide  what  seemed  good  to  them, 
and  not  to  expect  from  him  the  form  of  their  judgment.  He 

1  Manai,  t.  viii.  p.  256  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  973  sq. 

2  Muratori,  I.e.  p.  46  sq. 

iv.  5 


submitted  entirely  to  their  consideration  and  their  conscience 
the  question  whether  they  would  consider  the  offences 
charged  against  Symmachus  as  deserving  punishment  or  not. 
They  might  do  about  this  as  they  would,  and  as  they  would 
have  to  answer  before  God,  only  it  was  their  business  to 
restore  peace  to  the  Eoman  Church  (by  pronouncing  which 
was  the  legitimate  Pope),  so  that  no  division  and  disorder 
should  remain.1 

It  is  probable  that  in  delivering  this  royal  missive  the 
royal  Anagnosticus  (Lector)  read  a  further  communication 
from  Theoderic  to  the  Synod  which  was  still  assembled  in 
Rome,  which  in  part  had  the  same  contents  with  the  one  just 
quoted,  but  also  contained  a  fresh  exhortation  to  the  bishops 
to  judge  justly  and  impartially.  If,  however,  they  should 
come  to  no  definite  decision,  this  would  be  a  bad  example  to 
give  to  others  and  to  the  future. 

If  we  rightly  understand  the  close  of  this  edict,  the  three 
house-stewards  were  in  it  instructed  to  extend  every  possible 
protection  to  Pope  Symmachus  in  case  he  should  be  willing 
to  come  to  the  Synod ;  and  the  Synod  was  commanded  to  give 
over  the  Lateran,  as  well  the  building  as  the  area,  to  him  in 
whose  favour  their  judgment  might  be  given.2 

Upon  this  the  bishops  assembled  anew  on  the  23rd  of 
October  501  (where,  the  minutes  do  not  say),  and  this  is  the 
assembly  which  is  called  by  Mansi  and  others  the  third,  but 
by  the  Acts,  and  with  propriety,  the  fourth.3  Thus,  e.g., 
Ennodius  entitled  his  Apology,  which  he  wrote  for  this  Synod, 
as  Apologeticus  pro  Synodo  quarta  Romana*  and  it  was  also 
called  the  fourth  at  the  last  Synod  but  one,  the  sixth,  held 
under  Symmachus.5  There,  too,  in  some  MSS.  it  is  called  the 
Palmaris,  and  is  often  mentioned  under  this  name  by  the 
ancients.  An  examination  of  the  meaning  of  this  title  is 
found  in  Baronius,  and  the  most  probable  view  is  that  the 
Synod  obtained  this  designation  from  the  supposed  place  of 

1  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  257  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  974. 

2  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  257  sq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  975. 

3  The  minutes  are  printed  in  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  247  sqq.  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii. 
p.  967  sqq. 

4  In  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  271. 

8  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  295  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  983. 

ROMAN   SYNODS   UNDER   POPE   SYMMACHUS,  A.D.   501-504.      67 

assembly,  a  porticu  beati  Petri  Apostoli,  quce  appellatur  ad 
Palmaria,  as  Anastasius  said.1  Several  scholars,  particularly 
the  Bollandist 2  and  Mansi,3  give  the  title  Palmaris  to  the 
following  Synod,  which  they  call  the  fourth  and  we  the  fifth, 
but  in  manifest  contradiction  to  the  text  of  the  minutes  of 
the  last  Synod  of  this  series.4 

The  Acts  of  our  Synod  (the  fourth)  begin  with  the  state- 
ment that  it  was  held  by  command  of  King  Theoderic  under 
the  consulate  of  Kufus  Magnus  Faustus  Avienus,  by  which, 
as  has  already  been  mentioned  (p.  63),  we  are  to  understand 
only  the  one  consul  of  the  West.  We  must  therefore  read 
viro  darissimo  consulc  instead  of  iriris  clarissimis  consulibus. 
Accordingly  this  Synod  belongs  to  the  year  501,  and  must 
not  be  removed  into  the  following  year,  as  Baronius  has  done. 
It  is  quite  true  that  the  consul  for  the  year  502  had  the 
same  name  Eufus  Magnus  Faustus  Avienus ; 5  but  when  the 
latter  is  meant,  Junior  is  added,  whilst  naturally,  in  the  year 
501,  the  elder  Avienus  was  quoted  simply  and  without  the 
addition  of  Senior,  since  there  was  at  that  time  no  Junior  as 
consul.  But  Pagi  (ad  ann.  503)  is  more  astray  than  Baronius 
when  he  ascribes  this  assembly  to  the  year  503,  arbitrarily 
rejecting  the  chronological  datum  which,  as  we  have  said,  is 
found  in  the  minutes,  and  thus  makes  it  later  than  the 
following  Synod. 

Immediately  after  the  introduction  just  noticed,  the  Acts 
of  the  Synodus  Palmaris  give  first  a  brief  historical  survey  of 
the  two  previous  assemblies  of  the  same  year,  501,  i.e.  of  the 
second  Synod  held  at  Easter  501  in  the  Church  of  S.  Julius, 
and  of  the  third  Synod  held  on  September  1  in  the  Basilica 
of  the  Holy  Cross  of  Jerusalem.  We  have  already  related 
the  contents  of  this  part.  Next  comes  an  extract  from  the 
letter  of  Theoderic  of  October  1,  mentioned  above,  after 
which  the  Synod  proceeds  to  draw  up  its  own  decrees.  On 
account  of  the  high  consideration  of  Peter  which  had  descended 
to  his  successors,  they  said,  they  had  not  ventured  to  pass 

1  Cf.  Baronius,  ad  ann.  502,  n.  1,  2.  2  I.e.  p.  640,  n.  36. 

3  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  305. 

4  Mansi,  t.  viiL  p.  295  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  983. 

8  According  to  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  265,  the  latter  was  called  Flavianus  Avienus. 


judgment  upon  the  Pope,  but  preferred  to  leave  this  to  God, 
to  whom  all  secrets  were  open.  In  regard  to  men,  therefore, 
Symmachus  was  freed  from  all  the  charges,  and  all  who  had 
fallen  away  from  him  should  return  to  his  obedience,  at  the 
same  time  almost  the  whole  people  had  remained  steadfast  to 
him.  It  would  thus  belong  to  Symmachus  to  celebrate  the 
holy  mysteries  in  all  the  churches  of  his  jurisdiction,  and 
everyone  must  receive  the  communion  from  him.  The 
clergy,  moreover,  who  had  previously  separated  from  him, 
must  render  him  satisfaction,  and  then  ask  for  forgiveness 
and  be  reinstated  in  their  offices.  Those  clergy,  on  the  con- 
trary, who  should  in  future  venture  to  celebrate  Mass  in 
any  sacred  place  in  Eome  without  his  consent  should  be  pun- 
ished as  schismatics.  The  minutes  were  signed  by  seventy-six 
bishops,  at  the  head  of  whom  stood  Lawrence  of  Milan  and 
Peter  of  Eavenna.1 

When  the  Acts  of  the  Synod  were  received  in  Gaul,  the 
bishops  there,  being  unable,  in  consequence  of  the  dismember- 
ment of  the  empire,  to  hold  a  Synod,2  commissioned  Bishop 
Avitus  of  Vienne  to  express  his  judgment  on  this  important 
matter  in  their  name  and  in  his  own.  Avitus  therefore  addressed 
a  letter  to  the  two  senators,  Faustus  and  Symmachus.  In  this 
letter  he  first  complains  that  Christian  bishops  had  accepted 
a  command  from  the  King  to  sit  in  judgment  on  the  Pope,  but 
commends  them  for  having  themselves  seen  the  impropriety, 
and  expressed  their  sense  of  it.  In  his  double  capacity  of 
bishop  and  Eoman  senator,  he  adjures  his  senatorial  colleagues 
to  have  the  same  care  for  the  Eoman  Church  as  for  the  State, 
and  to  restore  its  peace. 

We  learn  from  the  author  of  the  Vita  Symmachi  that  the 
resolutions  of  the  Synodus  Palmaris  unfortunately  did  not 
obtain  universal  acceptance,  but,  on  the  contrary,  those  clerics 
and  senators  who  belonged  to  the  opposition  presented  a  new 
memorial  to  the  King  in  favour  of  Lawrence,  who  had  for 

1  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  247  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  967  sqq. 

2  In  the  document  to  which  we  are  indebted  for  this  information,  there  is  a 
letter  of  Bishop  Avitus  of  Vienne  to  the  senators  Faustus  and  Symmachus  (in 
Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  293  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  981  sqq.),  in  which  we  must,  in 
the  first  lines,  supply  non  between  nos  voti  compotes  and  reddit. 

ROMAN   SYNODS   UNDER   POPE  SYMMACHUS,   A.D.   501-504.      69 

some  time  taken  up  his  abode  in  the  residence  city  of 
Ravenna,  in  order  to  be  safe  from  Synmiachus.  They  repre- 
sented that  it  was  prescribed  by  the  canons  that  every  bishop 
was  bound  to  remain  in  the  church  for  which  he  had  been 
consecrated,  and  that  therefore  Lawrence  should  return  to 
Rome  and  preside  over  the  church  for  which  he  had  been  con- 
secrated a  considerable  time  ago.  Lawrence  did,  in  fact,  return 
to  Rome  (probably  at  the  beginning  of  the  year  502),  and 
remained  there  four  years,  during  which  time  the  strife  of  the 
parties  went  on  with  violence,  and  both  sides  repeatedly 
appealed  to  the  King.1 

In  this  interval  falls  the  fifth  (otherwise  called  the  fourth) 
Synod,  assembled  by  Pope  Symmachus  on  the  6th  of  Novem- 
ber 502,  under  the  consulate  of  the  younger  Avienus,  in  S. 
Peter's  Church  in  Rome,  which,  as  we  know,  was  in  his  hands. 
Baronius  regards  this  Synod  as  only  a  new  session  of  the 
Palmaris,  proceeding  upon  the  assumption  already  disproved, 
that  this  Synod  also  belonged  to  the  year  502.  Pagi,  how- 
ever (ad  ami.  502-503),  has  reversed  the  order,  and  placed  our 
fifth  Synod  before  the  Palmaris.  At  the  very  beginning  of 
the  minutes  of  this  Synod  it  is  mentioned  that  there  were 
present  eighty -one  bishops,  thirty -four  priests,  and  four 
deacons,  all  Italians ;  whilst  the  subscriptions,  of  which  Mansi 
gives  two  copies  from  different  MSS.,  contain  rather  fewer 
names.2  These  numbers  were,  to  a  large  extent,  the  same 
as  at  the  previous  Synod. 

First  of  all,  Pope  Symmachus  addressed  the  assembly, 
and  commended  them  for  their  previous  resolutions  (in  the 
Synodus  Palmaris).  He  then  ordered  the  deacon  Hormisdas 
to  read  a  document  which,  two  decades  before,  had  been  put 
forth  by  Basil,  the  Prcefectiis  Prcetorio  under  Odoacer,  at  an 
assembly  of  the  Roman  clergy  in  S.  Peter's  Church,  and  con- 
tained a  command  that  they  should  not,  after  the  death  of 
Pope  Simplicius  (A.D.  483),  elect  a  successor  to  him  without 
the  permission  of  the  King.  The  same  decree  forbade  every 
Pope  to  alienate  any  portion  of  the  goods  and  ornaments  of 
the  churches  under  penalty  of  anathema  to  the  vendor,  and 
other  penalties  for  the  purchaser.  During  the  reading  of  this 
1  Muratori,  I.e.  p.  47.  '-'  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  265  sqq. 


passage  the  Synod  expressed  its  indignation  that  a  layman 
should  threaten  anathema  to  a  cleric  (the  Pope  who  sold),  and 
several  bishops  of  distinction,  particularly  Lawrence  of  Milan, 
Peter  of  Eavenna,  and  Eulalius  of  Syracuse,  immediately 
declared  this  edict  as  invalid,  because  no  Pope  had  subscribed, 
and  because  no  layman  had  the  right  to  issue  instructions 
respecting  the  property  of  the  Church.  Indeed,  even  bishops, 
according  to  the  ancient  canons,  had  no  right  to  give  decisions 
respecting  the  property  of  the  Church  without  the  assent  of 
the  Metropolitan  or  Primus  (see  vol.  ii.  sec.  113).  Least  of 
all  could  a  layman,  when  no  Pope,  who  had  the  primacy  of  the 
whole  world,  was  present,  make  disposition  of  Church  matters. 

The  whole  Synod  concurred  in  this  judgment,  and  declared 
the  decree  in  question  wholly  invalid,  and  at  the  same  time 
forbade  any  layman,  however  pious  or  powerful,  to  put  forth 
ordinances  on  Church  property,  since  the  care  of  such  things 
was  by  God  intrusted  to  the  priesthood  alone.  In  order, 
however,  to  protect  the  property  of  the  Church,  and  to  shame 
his  enemies  who  had  accused  him  of  squandering  it,  Pope 
Symmachus  now  published  the  law,  that  henceforth  no 
occupant  of  the  apostolic  see  should  finally  dispose  by  sale 
or  exchange  of  any  estate,  small  or  great,  belonging  to  the 
Church,  and  that  the  proceeds  of  such  should  accrue  to  no 
others  than  clerics,  prisoners,  and  strangers ;  only  the  houses 
of  the  Church  in  cities,  the  maintenance  of  which  was  very 
expensive,  might  be  exchanged  after  a  fair  valuation.  This 
law  should  apply  not  merely  to  the  Pope,  but  also  to  the 
occupants  of  all  particular  churches  in  Eome,  whether  priests 
or  not.  Finally,  everyone  selling  Church  property  was 
threatened  with  loss  of  his  dignity ;  every  buyer,  and  every- 
one who  signed  such  a  contract  of  sale  as  witness,  with 
anathema,  and  the  clergy  were  authorised  to  claim  back  all 
alienated  Church  property  and  its  proceeds.  This  whole 
law,  however,  was  to  apply  only  to  Rome,  and  not  to  the 
provinces,  since  there  the  local  bishops  had  themselves  to 
arrange  what  was  suitable.1 

Occasion  for  a  new  Synod  was  given  by  the  continued 
acts  of  enmity  committed  by  the  opposition  party.  In  order 

1  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  265  sqq. ;  Hardouiu,  t.  ii.  p.  976. 

ROMAN   SYNODS   UNDER   POPE   SYMMACHUS,  A.D.   501-504.      71 

to  destroy  the  importance  of  the  fourth  Synod  (the  Palmaris), 
which  had  acquitted  Symmachus,  the  opponents  published  a 
memorial  with  the  title :  "  Contra  synodum  absolutionis  in- 
congrae"  (against  the  Synod  of  the  improper  absolution). 
But  Eunodius,  of  whom  we  have  heard,  came  forward  with  his 
Apologeticus  pro  Synodo  quarto,  Romano,.1  We  learn  from 
this  the  objections  which  the  enemies  of  Symmachus  brought 
against  that  Synod,  namely,  that  all  the  bishops  had  not  been 
summoned  by  the  King  to  the  assembly,  that  not  all  who  were 
present  had  agreed  in  the  decision,  that  they  had  not  heard 
the  Pope's  accusers  (his  own  slaves),  that  the  members  of  the 
Synod  had  been  too  old,  that  they  had  not  sufficiently  attended 
to  the  command  of  the  King,  and  had  involved  themselves  in 
a  contradiction ;  since,  on  the  one  hand,  they  had  maintained 
that  the  Pope  could  not  be  judged  by  his  inferiors,  and  yet 
had  brought  him  before  them ;  and,  moreover,  that  it  was 
something  new  for  a  Pope  to  convoke  a  Council  in  order  to 
defend  himself  against  accusations. 

Thereupon  the  sixth  (otherwise  the  fifth)  Synod  under 
Symmachus  was  held  at  Eome  after  the  consulate  of  Avienus, 
as  the  Acts  say,  and  so  in  the  year  503  (the  month  unknown), 
ante  confessionem  B.  Petri,  i.e.  before  the  grave  of  S.  Peter.2  At 
the  very  beginning  the  memorial  of  Ennodius,  already  men- 
tioned, was  publicly  read,  universally  approved,  and  its 
preservation  and  introduction  into  the  Acts  of  the  Synod 
between  the  minutes  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  assemblies 
ordered,  with  which  Symmachus  entirely  agreed.  The  mem- 
bers of  the  Synod  then  demanded  that  the  opponents  and 
accusers  of  the  Pope  should  be  punished,  and  saluted  himself 
with  loud  shouts  of  joy.  He,  on  his  part,  entreated  that  they 
would  be  gentle  with  them  according  to  the  word  of  Christ, 
that  he  who  wished  to  be  forgiven  by  God  must  also  forgive 
his  brethren.  In  order,  however,  that  for  the  future  nothing 
of  the  kind  should  be  attempted  against  a  Pope,  there  was  no 

1  Printed  in  Mansi,  t.  viii.  pp.  271-290.     Extracted  by  Baronius,  ad  ann. 
503,  n.  2  ;  and  still  better  l>y  Remi  Ceillier,  Histoire  dci  auteurs  sacris,  t.  xv. 
p.  643  sqq. 

2  Pagi's  remarks  (ad  ann.  503,   a.   11)  against  the  possibility  of  this  date 
(503),   and  in  favour  of  504,   in  opposition  to  the  indication  of  time  in  the 
minutes,  are  based  upon  his  false  assumptions  in  regard  to  the  earlier  Synods. 


need,  he  said,  for  any  new  ordinances,  since  the  old  were 
sufficient,  and  these  were  now  read,  confirmed  anew,  and 
embodied  in  the  minutes.1 

At  the  same  time,  the  Synod  appointed  the  punishment 
for  the  transgression  of  these  laws.  Again  acclamations 
broke  out  in  honour  of  Symmachus,  and  all  the  bishops 
present  joined  with  him  in  subscribing.2  After  the  Pope 
came  next  the  bishops  already  mentioned,  Lawrence  of  Milan, 
Peter  of  Eavenna,  and  Eulalius  of  Syracuse.  The  MSS. 
still  extant  give  214  names  (not  218  as  in  the  superscrip- 
tion) ;  but  probably  some  subscriptions  of  earlier  Councils 
have  been  added  by  mistake  to  the  genuine  subscriptions  of 
this  Synod,  for  there  occur  among  the  214  several  names  of 
bishops  who  had  been  present  at  the  Council  of  Chalcedon 
more  than  fifty  years  before.3 

The  last  Synod  of  this  series  is  called  the  sixth  at  the 
beginning  of  the  Acts,  which,  however,  are  the  work  of  a 
later  collector  of  Councils,  and  not  of  its  own  secretaries. 
As  already  shown,  it  was  really  the  seventh,  and  was  held 
under  the  presidency  of  Pope  Symmachus  on  the  1st  of 
October,  probably  in  the  year  504,  and  again  in  S.  Peter's 
Church.4  On  the  proposal  of  the  Pope,  the  older  laws 
against  the  embezzlers  of  Church  property,  and  against  the 
misconduct  of  priests,  were  again  brought  to  remembrance, 
and  confirmed  with  many  acclamations  :  "  Whoever  possesses 
the  property  of  the  Church  without  permission  of  the  bishop, 
and  dares  to  persist  in  possession,  and  conceals  the  property 
of  God  from  His  servants,  shall  first  be  expelled  from  the 

1  They  are  found  also  in  the  Corpus  jur.  can.  c.  13,  C.  ii.  q.  7  ;  c.  3,  4, 
C.  ii.  q.  2 ;  c.  3,  C.  iii.  q.  1 ;  c.  7,  C.  xii.  q.  2  ;  and  c.  3,  C.  iii.  q.  5.  In 
Corpus  jur.  can.  these  passages  are  ascribed  to  Popes  Eusebitis,  John  I.,  Nicolas, 
and  Stephen  (only  the  last  to  our  Symmachus).  But  this  is  the  work  of  pseudo- 
Isidore,  and  we  see  from  this  example  his  manner  of  putting  later  ordinances 
then  in  force  into  the  mouths  of  earlier  Popes.  Cf.  my  Essay  on  pseudo-Isidore 
in  the  Tubinger  Theolog.  Quartalschr.  1847,  S.  592,  and  in  Wetzer  and  Welte's 
Kirchenlexicon,  s.v. 

-  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  295  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  983  sqq. 

3  Cf.  Baronius,  adann.  503,  n.  9  ;  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  303,  nota  b  ;  Remi  Ceillier, 
I.e.  p.  643. 

*  Pagi  (ad  ann.  504,  n.  2)  also  decides  for  the  year  504.     So  Baronius,  ad  ann. 
504,  n.  3  ;  Remi  Cellier,  I.e.  p.  648. 

ROMAN   SYNODS   UNDER   POPE  SYMMACHUS,   A.D.   501-504.      73 

Church  by  the  bishop  of  the  place.  Those  who  do  not  amend 
are  to  be  regarded  and  punished  as  murderers  of  the  poor. 
But  the  punishment  must  be  preceded  by  a  clear  admonition. 
Moreover,  the  excuse  is  inadmissible,  that  anyone  possesses 
ecclesiastical  property  as  a  present  from  the  King  or  any 
other  secular  power."  Upon  this  the  7th  and  8th  canons 
of  Gangra  in  reference  to  the  property  of  the  Church  (see 
vol.  ii.  p.  327  sqq.)  were  repeated  and  explained,  that  it  was  a 
gross  sacrilege  if  Christians,  and  especially  Christian  rulers 
and  princes,  should  alienate  to  others  what  someone,  for  his 
soul's  health,  had  presented  to  the  Church ;  and  all  were 
threatened  with  eternal  anathema  who  should  unrighteously 
possess  or  accept  Church  property,  or  should  give,  lend,  or 
bequeath  it  to  their  heirs.1 

The  minutes  of  this  Synod,  which  are  drawn  up  at 
unusual  length,  were  signed  by  the  Pope  and  103  other 
bishops.  Some  MSS.  have  still  more  subscriptions ;  but 
in  these  the  names  of  the  bishops  as  well  as  of  their  sees 
are  given  incorrectly.2  Immediately  after  the  Pope,  in  this 
case,  came  the  signature  of  Peter,  bishop  of  Eavenna.  But 
Lawrence  of  Milan  does  not  appear,  although  he  was  still 
alive,  and  did  not  die  until  the  year  512.  We  know,  more- 
over, from  Cassiodorus,3  that  King  Theoderic  regarded  the 
decisions  of  the  Synod  as  valid,  and  recommended  the  restora- 
tion to  the  church  of  Milan  of  the  property  of  which  it  had 
been  deprived.  In  like  manner,  we  have  an  edict  from  this 
King,  dated  March  11,  507,  in  which  he  declared  the  similar 
ordinance  of  the  fifth  Synod  to  be  binding.4 

There  is  mention  of  another,  the  eighth  Koinan  Synod 
under  Symmachus,  which  anathematised  the  antipope  and 
the  visitator.  It  was  discovered  by  Eemi  Ceillier  (I.e.  p.  649) 
in  Anastasius.  He  says :  "  Anastase  fait  mention  d'un  Con- 
cile  de  Koine  sous  Symmaque,  ou  il  dit  que  ce  Pape  fut  absous 
par  115  EvSques,  et  Pierre  d'Altino,  nomine  Visiteur  par 

1  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  309  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  989  sqq. 

2  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  316. 

3  Var.  ii.  Ep.  29.     So  Baronius,  ad  ann.  504,  n.  4,  and  Binius  (in  Mansi 
I.e.  p.  316)  remarked. 

4  In  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  345  ;  Hardouiu,  t.  ii.  p.  963. 


Theoderic,  condamne  avec  Laurent,  competiteur  de  Sym- 
maque,  inais  Ennode  n'en  parle  pas  dans  son  Apologetique, 
ni  Symmaque  dans  le  sien.  Auroient  -  ils  oublie*  Tun  et 
1'autre  un  jugement  qui  ne  pouvoit  que  fortifier  leur  cause  ? " 
Remi  Ceiller  might,  with  still  greater  propriety,  have  appealed 
to  a  document  of  the  year  506,  in  which  the  Roman  deacon 
John,  who  had  hitherto  taken  the  side  of  the  opposition, 
declares  his  submission  to  Symmachus  in  the  words :  "  Con- 
sentiens  quce  veneranda  Synodus  judicavit  atque  constituit, 
anathematizans  Petrum  Altinatem  et  Laurentium  Romanes 
ecclesise  pervasorem  schismaticum." l 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  another  Synod,  the  eighth,  shortly 
before  the  year  506,  may  have  pronounced  the  sentence  of 
condemnation  on  the  visitator  and  the  pretender  to  the 
papacy,  but  it  is  more  probable  that  this  took  place  at  the 
Synodics  Palmaris,  or  one  of  the  Synods  immediately  succeed- 
ing. If  Symmachus  was  recognised  as  the  only  genuine  Pope, 
as  was  done  in  the  Palmaris,  the  rejection  of  his  opponents 
was  the  natural  consequence.  We  must  not,  however,  forget 
that  the  Synodus  Palmaris  was  subscribed  by  only  7  6  bishops, 
whilst  Anastasius  assigns  115  to  his  Synod.  Often,  how- 
ever, the  subscriptions  are  not  complete,  or  at  least  have  not 
come  down  to  us  complete. 

On  the  issue  of  the  conflict  between  Pope  Symmachus 
and  his  opponents,  no  other  Council  gives  us  any  information, 
nor  any  ancient  document  except  the  anonymous  Vita  Sym- 
machi.  We  learn  here  that  four  years  after  the  return  of 
the  Antipope  Lawrence,  namely,  in  A.D.  505  or  506,  Sym- 
machus after  many  attempts  succeeded  in  bringing  the  King 
over  to  his  side,  and  this  through  the  mediation  of  the 
Alexandrian  deacon  Dioscurus,  whom  he  had  sent  to  him 
for  that  purpose.  Theoderic  now  commanded  that  all  the 
churches  in  Rome  should  be  given  over  to  Symmachus,  and 
that  he  alone  must  be  recognised  as  bishop  of  this  city.2 
Upon  this,  it  is  said,  Lawrence,  in  order  to  avoid  further  dis- 
turbances, had  of  his  own  accord  withdrawn  to  an  estate  in 

1  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  344  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  963. 

-  About  this  time,  too,  the  Roman  deacon  John,  as  we  have  already  seen, 
made  his  submission  to  Symmachus. 

BYZACENE  SYNOD,  A.D.   504   Oil  507.  75 

the  country,  and  ended  his  days  here  as  a  severe  ascetic. 
Nevertheless  the  schism  in  the  Roman  Church  lasted  to  the 
death  of  Symmachus,  because  he,  although  now  victorious, 
had  in  many  ways  stained  his  good  name,  particularly  by 
ordaining  for  money.1  He  also  caused  the  Church  of  S. 
Martin  by  S.  Silvester  to  be  built,  adorned,  and  dedicated 
at  the  expense  of  Palatinus,  a  highly  respected  man ;  and, 
besides,  he  had  several  cemeteries  restored,  particularly 
that  of  S.  Pancratius,  and  several  new  ones  built.2 
Symmachus  did  not  die  until  the  year  514,  and  during 
his  pontificate  several  other  Councils  were  held  outside 

SEC.  221.  Byzacene  Synod,  A.D.  504  or  507. 

It  is  customary  to  assign  the  Byzacene  Synod  (in  the  African 
province  of  that  name,  south  of  Carthage)  to  the  year  504. 
But  Labbe,  even  in  his  time,  thought  it  more  correct  to  place 
it  in  the  year  507,  because  Fulgentius  of  Ruspe  was  made 
bishop  soon  after  the  Synod,  and  his  elevation  belonged  to 
the  year  507  or  508.3  Moreover,  he  also  rightly  drew 
attention  to  the  fact  that  the  assembly  was  not  properly  a 
Council,  but  only  a  conference  of  some  African  bishops.  The 
only  source  from  which  we  draw  information  respecting  this 
Council  is  the  disciple  and  biographer  of  S.  Fulgentius  of 
lluspe,  the  deacon  Fulgentius  Ferrandus,  and  he  relates  that 
at  the  time  when  the  Vandal  and  Arian  King  Thrasamund 
exiled  the  largest  number  of  the  orthodox  bishops  of 
Africa,  and  forbade  others  to  ordain,  those  who  still 
remained  had  formed  the  resolution,  in  spite  of  this  pro- 
hibition, to  care  for  the  orphaned  churches,  and  that  in  conse- 
quence many  priests  and  deacons  were  in  all  haste  consecrated 

1  We  must  not  forget  that  the  author  of  the  Vita  was  a  violent  opponent  of 
Symmachus.     See  above,  p.  59. 

2  In  Muratori,  I.e.  p.  47. 

3  The  year  in  which  Fulgentius  was  ordained  cannot  be  determined  with 
certainty.     It  is  supposed  to  have  been  between  505  and  508.     Compare  the 
examination  of  the  Ballerini  in  their  Observations  in  Norisii  Opp.  t.  iv.  p.  933. 

4  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  317.     Wanting  in  Hardouiu. 


SEC.  222.  Synod  at  Agde  (Agatha),  A.D.  506. 

Of  greater  importance  is  the  Concilium  Agathense,  which  was 
celebrated  at  Agde  in  South  Gaul,  near  the  shore  of  the  Mediter- 
ranean Sea,  in  the  province  of  Languedoc,  in  September  506. 
There  were  thirty-five  bishops  present,  and  thirty-four  sub- 
scribed.1 At  their  head,  as  is  shown  by  the  subscription, 
stood  Archbishop  Caesarius  of  Aries,  and  in  a  short  preface 
to  the  canons  the  bishops  state  that  they  had  met  in  S. 
Andrew's  Church  at  Agde  with  the  permission  of  the  West 
Gothic  (Arian)  King  Alaric,  in  order  to  take  counsel  on 
discipline,  on  the  ordination  of  clergy  and  bishops,  and  on 
matters  useful  to  the  Church.2  In  the  Collections  of  the 
Councils  there  are  ordinarily  seventy-one  canons  of  this 
Synod  published,  which  were  regarded  as  genuine  by  Gratian, 
and  which  he  received  almost  in  their  complete  form  into 
his  Decretum.  Besides,  we  find  both  in  his  works  and  in  the 
older  collections  of  Burchard  of  Worms  and  Ivo  of  Chartres, 
some  other  canons  ascribed  to  this  Synod.3  But  it  was 
pointed  out  by  Sirmond  that  only  forty-seven  belong  to  it ;  all 
the  others  are  lacking  in  the  oldest  manuscripts  of  the  Conciliar 
Acts,  and  proceed  from  other  Synods,  although  they  were  at 
an  early  period  placed  among  the  canons  of  Agde.4  The  forty- 
seven  genuine  canons  have  the  following  content : — 

I.  After  the  reading  of  the  earlier  ordinances,  De  digamis 
non  ordinandis,  particularly  of  the  1st  canon  of  the  Synod  of 
Valence,  A.D.  374  (see  vol.  ii.  p.  289),  the  Council  softened 
the  ancient  harshness  to  the  extent  that  those  Bigami  or 
husbands  of  widows  who  had  already  been  ordained,  should 
retain  the  title  (dignity)  of  the  presbyterate  and  diaconate, 
but  that  such  priests  should  not  consecrate  (say  Mass),  and 
such  deacons  should  not  serve  (at  the  altar). 

1  Remi   Ceillier,    Hisloire  des  auteurs  sacrte,   etc.,   t.    xv.    p.    656,   gives 
erroneously  eighty-four. 

2  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  323  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  997  ;  Sirmond,  Concilia  Oallise, 
t.  i.  p.  161. 

3  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  338  sqq. 

4  Of.  Sirmond,  Concilia  Gallix,  t.  i.  p.  170  ;  Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  333  and  340, 
nota  6  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.   p.  1003,  note  after  can.  47 ;  Eemi  Ceillier,   I.e.  p. 
656  sq. 

SYNOD  AT  AGDE  (AGATHA),  A.D.   50G.  77 

2.  Disobedient  clerics  were  to  be  punished  by  the  bishop. 
If  any  among  them  should  presumptuously  despise  the  com- 
munion (of  the  bishop),  not  attend  the  church,  and  not  fulfil 
their  office,  the  peregrina  communio  should  be  given  to  them 
until  they  return.     Remi  Ceillier  (I.e.  p.  657),  under  reference 
to  the  dissertation  of  Jacobus  Dominicus,  De  communione  pere- 
grina, explains  this  expression  thus :  They  were,  like  strange 
clergy,  to  communicate  after  the  rest  of  the  clergy,  but  before 
the    laity.     This    explanation,  however,   is   incorrect.       The 
true  meaning  is  recognised  by  Aubespine,  and  after  him  by 
Bingham,  who  has  written  a  whole  dissertation  on  this  term.1 
They  remark  that  just  as  strangers,  even  when  they  have  no 
letters  of  peace,  were  yet  provided  with  all  that  was  necessary, 
and  were  received  into  the  communio  benignitatis,  but  not  to 
the  communio    altaris?  so  they  dealt  temporarily  with  dis- 
obedient   clerics,  in    order  to  reform    them,  and    that    this 
temporary  exclusion  from  the  church  was  a  much  slighter 
punishment    than    the    permanent    removal    into    communio 
laicalis?     The  same  explanation  is  given  by  Bohmer  in  his 
edition  of  the  Corpus  jur.  can.  in  the  note  to  c.  21,  Dist.  50, 
where  we  find  our  canon  of  Gratian  adduced. 

3.  If    a    bishop    has    excommunicated    anyone   who    is 
innocent,  or  who  has  committed  only  a  very  slight  fault,  the 
neighbouring  bishops  should  advise  him ;  and  if  he  does  not 
comply,  they  should  not,  at  the  next  Synod,  deny  the  com- 
munion to  the  excommunicated  person,  so  that  he  may  not 
through  the  fault  of  others  die  without  this.     (In  the  old 
collection  of  Church  ordinances  of  Burchard,  the  end  of  this 
canon   runs  as  follows :  "  If  the  bishop  will  not  follow  his 
colleagues,  they   shall   exclude   him  from    their    communion 
until  the  next  Synod.")     In  the  Corpus  jur.  can.  our  canon  is 
c.  8,  Causa  xi.  q.  3. 

4.  Clerics  and  laymen  who  take  back  presents  made  to  the 
Church  or  to  a  monastery  by  their  ancestors  or  themselves, 

1  Origines,  etc.,  t.  viii.  p.  27  sqq.,  t.  ii.  p.  200  [Bk.  v.  c.  1,  S.  3 ;  xv.  c.  5  ; 
xvii.  c.  2]. 

2  See  vol.  i.  p.  471;  Apost.  Canon.  34. 

3  In  this  sense  communio  peregrina  is  used  also  in  c.  3  of  the  Synod  of  Eiez 
(vol.  iii.),  and  in  c.  16  of  the  Synod  of  Lerida,  A.D.  524.     See  below,  sec.  237. 


shall   be  excommunicated   as   murderers   of   the  poor.     See 
above,  sec.  220  ;  cf.  c.  11,  C.  xiii.  q.  2. 

5.  If  a  cleric  has  stolen  anything  from   the  church,  he 
shall  be  removed  into  communio  pcrigrina  (cf.  c.  2).     In  the 
Corpus  jur.  can.  this  canon  is  united  with  the  previous  one  as 
c.  11,  C.  xiii.  q.  2. 

6.  What  is  left  or  presented  to  a  bishop,  whether  to  him 
and  the  Church  alike  or  to  him  alone,  belongs,  not  to  the 
bishop    as    personal   property,   but   is  the   property   of    the 
Church ;  for  the  giver  meant  to  care  for  the  salvation  of  his 
soul,  not   for   the  use  of  the  bishop.     Justice  also  requires 
that,  as  the  bishop  enjoys  that  which  is  bequeathed  to  the 
Church,  so  the  Church  should  have  what  is  presented  to  the 
bishop.     If,  however,  anything  is  left  in  trust  to  the  bishop  or 
to  the  Church,  with  the  intention  of  its  coming  afterwards  to 
another,  the  Church  must  not  retain  this  as  property,  cf.  c.  3, 
C.  xii.  q.  3.     This    canon    was    repeated    in    c.    20  of  the 
Synod  of  Eeims,  A.D.  625. 

7.  No    bishop    shall    alienate    the    buildings,  slaves,   or 
furniture  belonging  to  the  Church,  because  they  are  the  pro- 
perty of  the  poor.     In  case  of  its  being  necessary,  however, 
to  give  anything,  in  the  interest  of  the  Church,  for  sale  or 
for  usufruct,  this  can  be  done  only  with  the  consent  and  sub- 
scription of  two  or  three  neighbouring  comprovincial  bishops. 
Moreover,  if  a  bishop  grants  their  liberty  to  any  slaves  who 
have  made  themselves  deserving  of  it,  his  successors  must 
respect  this  act,  and  must  also  leave  them  that  which  his 
predecessor  had  presented  to  them  in  fields,  vineyards,  and 
dwelling,  only  that  it  must  not  exceed  twenty  solidi  in  value. 
If  what  was  given  is  worth  more,  the  excess  must  be  restored 
after  the  death  of  the  emancipator.     Insignificant  and  less 
useful  goods  of  the  Church  may  be  given  to  strangers  and 
clerics  for  usufruct,  with  reservation  of  the  Church's  right  of 
possession.     Cf.  c.  1,  C.  x.  q.  2. 

8.  If  a  cleric  leaves  his  office  and  has  recourse  to  a  secular 
judge  on  account  of  (ecclesiastical)  punishment  (i.e.  to  escape 
it),  then  he  and  the  judge  who  admits  him  shall  be  excom- 
municated.    Cf.  c.  1,0.  xxi.  q.  5. 

9.  If  married  deacons  or  priests  wish  to  return   to  the 

SYNOD  AT  AGDE  (AGATHA),  A.D.   500.  79 

nuptial  couch,  the  ordinances  of  Popes  Innocent  and  Siricius 
shall  apply.  For  this  reason  the  Ordinatio  Innoccntii,  which 
also  includes  the  older  ordinance  of  Siricius,  was  appended  to 
this  canon.  Both  require  that  such  incontinent  clerics  shall 
be  deprived  of  all  ecclesiastical  dignities  and  offices.  Only 
those  who  did  not  know  that  the  continuance  of  marital 
intercourse  was  forbidden,  may  be  allowed  to  retain  their 
office,  if  they  abstain  for  the  future. 

10.  A   cleric   must  not  visit  strange  women  nor  have 
them  in  his  house ;  and  he  must  live  only  with  his  mother, 
or  sister,  or  daughter,  or  niece. 

11.  Female  slaves  also  and  freedwomen  must  be  removed 
from  the  service  and  from  the  house  of  a  cleric. 

12.  All  members  of  the  Church  must  fast  daily  during 
Lent,  even  on  Saturdays,  Sundays  alone  being  excepted.     Of. 
c.  9,  De  Consecrat.  Dist.  iii. 

13.  In  all  churches  the  sacrament  of  baptism  is  to  be 
administered    to    the    candidates  on  the   same  day,  namely, 
eight  days  before  Easter.     Cf.  c.  56,  De  Consecrat.  Dist.  iv. 

14.  The  altars  are  not  only  to  be  anointed  with  chrism, 
but  are  also  to  be  blessed.     Cf.  c.  32,  De  Consecrat.  Dist.  i. 

1 5.  Penitents l  shall  receive  from  the  priest  the  imposition 
of  hands  and  a  cilicium  upon  the  head.     If,  however,  they  do 
not  cut  off  their  hair  and  change  their  clothes,  they  must  be 
rejected.    Young  people,  on  account  of  the  weakness  of  their  age, 
must  not  lightly  be  admitted  to  penance.     But  the  Viaticum  is 
not  to  be  refused  to  anyone  who  is  near  death.     Cf.  c.  63,  Dist.  1. 

16.  The  bishop  must  ordain  no  one  a  deacon  who  is  not 
twenty-five  years  old.     If  a  young  married  man  wishes  to  be 
ordained,  he  must  be  asked  whether  his  wife  also  agrees,  and 
is  willing  to  depart  from  her  husband's  abode  and  practise 
continence.2     Cf.  c.  6,  Dist.  Ixxvii. 

1  By  penitents  we  are  to  understand  not  only  such  as  are  condemned  by  the 
Church  to  public  penance,  but  also  those  who,  from  repentance  for  their  sins 
committed  in  secular  life,  make  a  vow  (profexsio)  of  continence,  and  are  often 
also  called  conversi.  Cf.  c.  16  and  (above,  sec.  164)  c.  21,  below  (sec.  224),  c.  11 
of  the  first  Synod  of  Orleans.  On  Viaticum,  cf.  (sec.  229)  c.  9  of  the  Synod  of 
Gerunde.  On  the  meaning  of  our  canon,  cf.  Frank,  Die  Bussdisciplin  der  Kirche 
(The  Penitential  Discipline  of  the  Church),  Mainz  1867,  S.  497  and  596. 

-  Conversio  is  here  and  often  equivalent  to  professio  continentite.     Cf.  c.  22 


17.  A  priest  or  bishop  must  be  thirty  years  old  before 
being  ordained.     (Gratian   has  united   this   canon   with  the 
previous  one  in  c.  6,  Dist.  Ixxvii.) 

18.  Laymen    who    do    rot    communicate    at    Christmas, 
Easter,  and  Pentecost  are  not  to  be  regarded  as  Catholics. 
Cf.  c.  19,  De  Consecrat.  Dist.  ii. 

19.  Nuns  (Sanctimoniales),  however  their  morals  may  be 
approved,  must  not   receive   the   veil  before  they  are  forty 
years  old.     Cf.  c.  13,  C.  xx.  q.  1. 

20.  If  clerics  are  careful  of  their  hair,  it  must  be  cut  off' 
even  against  their  will  by   the  archdeacon  ;  and  they  must 
wear    only    becoming  clothes   and   shoes.      Cf.  c.   22,  Dist. 

21.  Divine  service  may  be  held  in  oratories,  but  not  at 
Easter,  Christmas,  Epiphany,  the  Ascension  of  Christ,  Pente- 
cost, the  Nativity   of   S.   John  the  Baptist,  or   other  great 
festivals.     On    these    days    all    must    attend    the    parochial 
service.     The  ecclesiastic  who  says  Mass  on  those  days  in  an 
oratory  is  excommunicated.     Cf.  c.  35,  De  Consecrat.  Dist.  i. 

22.  Priests    and    clerics    in  towns,  etc.,  may  spend  for 
themselves  the  Church  property  which  the  bishop  has  assigned 
to  them,  but  they  are  not  to  sell  it  or  give  it  away.     Cf.  c. 
32,  C.  xii.  q.  2. 

23.  A    bishop  must    not    with    partiality    pass    over    a 
blameless  cleric  and  prefer  a  younger  to  him.      If,  however, 
the  elder  is  not  fitted  for  the  archidiaconate,  then  the  better 
qualified  for  the  administration  of    the    Church    should    be 
chosen  by  the  bishop.     Cf.  c.  5,  Dist.  Ixxiv. 

24.  In  regard  to  children  exposed,  the  ordinance  of  the 
older  Council  (of  Vaison,  c.  9,  above,  sec.  163)  remains  in  force. 

25.  Laymen  who  separate  themselves  from  their  unfaith- 
ful wives  without  having  waited  for  the  sentence  of  the  com- 
provincial bishops,  in  order  unlawfully  to  enter  into   other 
unions,  must  be  excluded  from  Church  communion  and  from 
intercourse    with    the  faithful.     Cf.    c.    1,    C.  xxxiii.  q.    2, 
and  c.  2   of  the  Council  of  Vannes,  A.D.  465  ;  see  above,  sec. 

of  the  Synod  of  Orange,  and  c.  43  of  the  Synod  of  Aries,  A.D.  443  (sec.  162). 
Du  Cange,  Glossar.  s.h.v. 

SYNOD  AT  AGDE  (AGATHA),  A.D.   500.  81 

26.  If    a    cleric    secretes    or    suppresses    documents   by 
which  the  Church  can  prove  her  right  to  a  possession,  or 
delivers  them  up  to  her  opponents,  he  shall  be  excommuni- 
cated, and  condemned  to  pay  an  indemnity.     And  the  same 
shall  be  done  to  anyone  who  has  tempted  him  to  it.     Of.  c. 
33,  C.  xii.  q.  2. 

27.  No  one  is  allowed  to  build  or  found  a  new  convent 
without    permission   of  the  bishop.     Monks  are  not  to    be 
ordained  clerics  without  a  testimonial  from  their  abbot ;  and 
no  abbot  must  receive  a  strange  monk  unless  his  abbot  gives 
his  permission.     Cf.  c.  12,  C.  xviii.  q.  2. 

28.  Women's  convents  must  not  be  placed  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  men's  convents,  as  well  because  of  the  cunning 
of   Satan   as   because  of   the  evil  report  of  men.     Cf.  c.  23, 
C.  xviii  q.  2. 

29.  The    Church    shall    protect    those    who    have    been 
regularly    liberated    by    their     masters.       Cf.    c.    7,    Dist. 

30.  Divine  service  shall  everywhere  be  held  in  the  same 
manner.     After  the  Antiphons,  the  Collects  shall  be  said  by 
the  bishops  or  priests,  the  hymni  matutini  and  vespertini  be 
daily  sung.     At  the  close  of  matins  and  vespers  (which  are 
here   called   Missce,  see    above,  sec.  219),  after    the  hymns, 
chapters  out  of  the  Psalms  shall    be  said,  and  the    people 
after    the  vesper  prayer   shall   be   dismissed  by  the   bishop 
with  a  blessing.     Cf.  c.  13,  De  Consecrat.  Dist.  v. 

31.  Those  who  for  a  long  time  have  enmity  with  one 
another  shall  first  be  admonished  by  the  priest,  and  if  they 
persist,  shall  be  excommunicated.     Cf.  c.  9,  Dist.  xl. 

32.  A  cleric  must  not  without  permission  of  the  bishop 
sue  anyone  before  the  secular  judge.     If  he  is  himself  sued 
in  this  manner,  he  may  answer ;  but  he  himself  must  bring 
no  charge,  least  of  all  a  criminal  accusation,  before  the  secular 
judge.     If,  however,  a  layman  has  falsely  accused  a  cleric,  he 
shall  be  excluded  from  the  Church,  and  from  the  communion 
of   Catholics.     Gratian  out  of  this  canon  made  two,  namely, 
c.  17,  C.  xi.  q.  1,  and  c.  8,  C.  v.  q.   6 ;  but  he  brought  in  non 
before  respondeat,  so  as  to  give  this  meaning :  "If  a  cleric 
is  summoned  before  a  secular  tribunal,  he  must  not  answer." 

iv.  6 


But  in  all  the  old  and  good  MSS.  the  negation  is  wanting, 
as  Sirmond  assures  us.1 

33.  If  a  bishop  has  no  sons  or  grandsons,  and  appoints 
anyone  save  the  Church  his  heir,  then  all  that  he  has  derived 
from  the  revenues  of  his  Church  and  not  spent  for  ecclesi- 
astical purposes,  and  so  saved,  shall  be  deducted  from  what 
he  has  left.     If,  however,  he  has  left  sons,  these  shall  see  the 
Church  unharmed  in  regard  to  the  inheritance  (by  giving  up 
a  portion  of  it).     Cf.  c.  34,  C.  xii.  q.  2. 

34.  If  Jews  wish  to  become  Catholics,  since  they  may  so 
readily  return  to  their  vomit,  they  must  remain  eight  months 
as  catechumens  before  they  can  be  baptized.     Only  if  they 
come  near  to  death  may  they  receive  baptism  earlier.     Cf.  c. 
93,  De  Cotiseerat.  Dist.  iv. 

35.  If    the    metropolitan    summons    the    comprovincial 
bishops  either  to  the  ordination  of  a  bishop  or  to  a  Synod, 
they  must  appear  on  the  day  appointed.     Only  serious  illness 
or  the  command  of  the  king  excuses.     If  they  do  not  appear, 
they  remain,  in  accordance  with  the  ancient  canons,  excluded 
from  communion  until  the  next  Synod.     Cf.  above,  sec.  113, 
c.  11  of  the  sixth  Synod  of  Carthage;  and  sec.  200,  note  on 
c.  20  of  the  Synod  of  Chalcedon ;  also  below,  sec.  229,  c.  6 
of  the  Synod  of  Tarragona,  where  the  idea  of  the  excommuni- 
cation here  threatened  is  more  fully  discussed.     In  Corpus 
jur.  can.  our  canon  appears  as  c.  13,  Dist.  xviiL 

36.  All  clerics  who  faithfully  serve  the  Church  shall  be 
rewarded  by  the  bishops  after  their  deserving,  and  in  accord- 
ance with  the  ordinances  of   the  canons.     Cf.  c.   10,    C.  i. 
q.  2. 

37.  Murderers    and    false    witnesses    must   be  excluded 
from   Church  communion,  unless  they   have   expiated   their 
crimes  by  penance  and  satisfaction.     Compare  c.   1   of  the 
Synod   of    Vannes,    above,   sec.    211;    and    c.   20,    C.  xxiv. 
q.  3. 

38.  Clerics    must   not   travel  without  the  epistolce  com- 
mendatitice  of  the  bishop.     So  also  the  monks ;  and  if  they 
do    not    attend    to    this   admonition,  they   must   be   beaten. 
Monks  are  not  allowed  to  separate  from  the  community  and 

1  In  Concilia  Gallise,  t.  i.  p.  601 ;  in  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  340. 

SYNOD  AT  AGDE  (AGATHA),  A.D.   506.  83 

occupy  separate  cells  (huts),  unless  when  they  are  under  pro- 
bation or  in  case  of  sickness,  when  the  abbot  may  soften  the 
stringency  of  the  rule  for  them.  But  even  then  they 
must  (in  their  separate  cells)  remain  within  the  walls  of  the 
monastery  and  under  the  supervision  of  the  abbot.  The 
abbots  must  not  have  several  cells  or  monasteries.  Only  in 
case  of  hostile  attacks  they  may  (outside  the  monastery)  erect 
residences  inside  the  walls  of  a  city.  The  same  was  ordained 
by  the  Synod  of  Vannes,  A.D.  465,  in  canons  5  to  8  ;  see 
above  sec.  211.  Gratian  has  our  canon  as  c.  43,  C.  xx. 
q.  4. 

39.  Priests,  deacons,  subdeacons,  or  others  not  permitted 
to  marry,  must  not  be  present  at  the  marriages  of  others,  nor 
in  companies  where  erotic  and  indecent  songs  are  sung,  etc. 
A  repetition  of  c.   11   of  the  Council  of  Vannes  (sec.   211), 
and  cf.  c,  19,  Dist.  xxxiv. 

40.  Clerics  and  laity  must  not  participate  in  the  meals 
of  the   Jews. — This   is  forbidden  by  the   Synod  of  Vannes 
(c.  12)  to  the  clergy  alone.     In  Gratian  this  canon  stands  as 
c.  14,  C.  xxviii.  q.  1. 

41.  A  clergyman  who  gets  intoxicated  must,  as  far  as 
his  position  permits,  be  excommunicated  for  thirty  days,  or 
corporally  chastised.     Cf.  c.  13  of  the  Synod  of  Vannes,  and 
c.  9,  Dist.  xxxv. 

42.  Clerics    and    laymen    who    meddle    with    the    sortes 
sanctorum  must  be  excluded  from  the  church.     Cf.  c.  16  of 
the  Synod  of  Vannes  (sec.  211),  and  c.  2,  C.  xxvi.  q.  5. 

43.  Whoever  has  undergone  ecclesiastical  penance  is  for- 
bidden, in  accordance  with  previous  synodal  ordinances  (cf. 
sec.  112),  to  become  a  cleric.     If  he  is  already  ordained,  he 
shall  be  regarded  like  one  who  has  married  a  second  time,  or 
a  widow. — If  a  priest,  he  is  not  to  consecrate ;  if  a  deacon, 
he  is  not  to  serve  (see  above,  c.  1).     Our  canon  is  found  out 
of  place,  and  combined  with  the  following  one  in  Gratian,  c.  3, 
C.  xxvi.  q.  6. 

44.  The  priest  must  not  bless  the  people  and  the  peni- 
tents in  the  church.     Cf.  c.  3,  C.  xxvi.  q.  6. 

45.  Small  fields  and  vineyards  which  are  of  small  use  to 
the  Church,  and  are  situated  at  a  distance,  may  be  alienated 


by  the  bishop  without  consulting  his  brethren. — This  is  an 
abridgment  of  c.  7.  Keceived  by  Gratian  into  c.  53,  C.  xii. 
q.  2. 

46.  Slaves    also  who   have   run   away,  and   who,   when 
recovered,  can  scarcely  be  retained,  the  bishop  is  at  liberty  to 
sell.     Cf.  c.  54,  C.  xii.  q.  2. 

47.  On  Sundays  all  laymen  must  be  present  at  the  whole 
Mass,  so  that  they  are  not  allowed  to  depart  before  the  bless- 
ing.    If,  nevertheless,  they    do    so,  they  shall    be    publicly 
censured  by  the  bishop.     Cf.  c.  64,  De  Consecrat.  Dist.  i. 

So  far  the  genuine  canons  of  the  Synod  of  Agde  extend. 
In  addition,  as  we  have  remarked,  there  are  others  ascribed 
to  this  Synod,  as  follows : — 

48.  The  bishop  may  leave  to  his  heirs  what  belonged  to 
him  as  private  property.     But  what  he  received  from  the 
Church    must    remain    to    the   Church.     Cf.    c.    19,  C.  xii. 
q.  1. 

49.  Deacons  and  priests  who  are  appointed  to  a  parish 
may    not    alienate    anything    of    the    ecclesiastical   property 
intrusted   to    them.     So  with    the   sacerdotes    (bishops).     If, 
nevertheless,  they  do  so,  and  if  they  are  convicted  of  it  in  a 
Council,  they  are  to  be  deposed,  and  they  must  make  restitu- 
tion.    If,  however,  the  bishops  wish  to  give  liberty  to  any 
belonging  to  the  churches  under  their  care  (i.e.  slaves  which 
are  Church  property),  they  must  in  doing  so  follow  the  process 
prescribed  by  the  Church.     If  they  fail  in  this,  they  (who 
were  freed)  must  return  to  their  former  service.     Gratian 
divided     this    canon    into    two,    c.     35    and     c.     56,    C. 
xii  q.  2. 

50.  If  a  bishop,  priest,  or  deacon  has  committed  a  capital 
offence,  has  falsified  a  document,  or  given  false  witness,  he 
shall  be  deposed,  and  imprisoned  in  a  monastery,  where  for  his 
whole  life  he  shall  receive  only  lay  communion. — This  is  c. 
22  of  the  Synod  of  Epaon  (sec.  231),  below,  and  is  found  in 
the  Corpus  jur.  can.  as  c.  7,  Dist.  1. 

51.  A   bishop  must  not  bequeath  by  will  any  Church 
property. — This  is  c.  17  of  the  Synod  of  Epaon,  taken  into 
the  Corpus  jur.  can.  as  c.  5,  C.  xii  q.  5. 

52.  If  a  priest,  or  deacon,  or  any  other  cleric  travels 

SYNOD  AT  AGDE  (AGATHA),  A.D.   506.  85 

without  a  letter  from  his  bishop,  no  one  is  to  receive  him  to 
communion. — This  is  c.  6  of  the  Synod  of  Epaon. 

53.  If  a  parish  priest  (parochiarum  presbyter)  alienates 
any  Church  property,  his  act  is  invalid.     Cf.  c.  36,  C.  xii. 
q.  2. 

54.  The  priest  who  administers  a  parish l  should  allow 
what  he  purchases  to  be  put  down  in  the  name  of  the  Church, 
or  he  should  resign  the  administration  of  the  Church. — This 
is  c.  8  of  the  Synod  of  Epaon,  and  is  placed  by  Gratian  as  c. 
3,  C.  xii.  q.  4. 

55.  Bishops,  priests,  and  deacons  are  not  allowed  to  have 
hunting  hounds  and  falcons.     The  bishop  who  does  so  shall 
abstain   three  months   from  the  communion,  the  priest  two 
months,  the  deacon  shall  be  excluded  for  one  month  from  all 
service  and  from  the  communion. — This  is  c.  4  of  the  Synod 
of  Epaon.     In  Gratian,  c.  2,  Dist.  xxxiv. 

56.  If  an  abbot  sells  anything  without  the  bishop's  know- 
ledge, it  may  be  recovered  by  the  bishop.     Slaves  who  belong 
to  monks  must  not  be  set  free  by  the  abbot ;  for  it  is  unfit- 
ting   that,  whilst    the    monks    daily  till    the    ground,  their 
servants  should  be  idle. — This  is  a  portion  of  the  8th  canon 
of  Epaon.     In  Gratian,  c.  40,  C.  xvii.  q.  4. 

57.  An  abbot  must  not  preside  over  two  abbeys.     Cf. 
above,  c.  38  and  c.  39  of  Epaon;  also  c.  4,  C.  XXL  q.  1. 

58.  New  cells  (small  monasteries)  or  small  congregations 
of  monks  may  not  be  set  up  without  the  knowledge  of  the 
bishop. — This  is  c.   10  of    Epaon.     In    Gratian,   c.    13,   C. 
xviii.  q.  2. 

59.  If  a  cleric  has  possession  of  Church  property  ever  so 
long,  it  does  not  become  his  private  property. — This  is  c.  18 
of  Epaon.     In  Gratian,  c.  11,  C.  xvi.  q.  3. 

60.  Punishment  of  one  who  has  lapsed  from  the  Church 
and  gone  over  to  a  heresy. — This  is  c.  29  of  Epaon. 

61.  Incestuous    unions    are    entirely    prohibited.       The 
different  kinds  of  incest  are  enumerated  in  detail. — This  is  c. 
30  of  Epaon.     In  Gratian,  c.  5,  C.  xxxv.  q.  2  and  3. 

1  Dioecesis  and  ecclesia  dioecesana  are  often  used  in  the  sense  of  parish  and 
ecde&ia  parochicdis  and  ruralis.  Cf.  cc.  7  and  8  of  the  Synod  of  Tarragona 
(sec.  516),  and  Du  Cange,  Glossar.  s.v.  Dioecesis. 


6  2.  =  c.  34  of  Epaon. 
6  3.  =  c.  35  of  Epaon. 

64.  If  a  cleric  is  not  present  in  his  church  on  the  great 
festivals,  he  shall  be  excommunicated  for  three  years ;  and  so 
also  the  priest  or  deacon  who  leaves  his  church  for  three 
weeks.     Cf.  c.  29,  C.  vii.  q.  1. 

65.  =  c.   20  of  Laodicea  (in  vol.  ii).     In  Gratian,  c.  15, 
Dist.  xciii. 

66.  Unordained  servers   must  not  take  a   place  in  the 
Diaconicum,  nor  touch  the  holy  vessels.     This  is  identical  with 
c.  21  of  Laodicea  (vol.  ii.  p.  313);  only  that  here  the  refer- 
ence is  only  to  insacratis  ministris,  whilst  at  Laodicea  it  is  to 
servers  (subdeacons)  generally.     Cf.  c.  26,  Dist.  xxiii. 

67.  =  c.  31  of  Laodicea  (vol.  ii.  p.  316). 

68.  =  c.  36  of  Laodicea  (vol.  ii.  p.  318). 

69.  Agitators  must  never  be  ordained,  nor  yet  usurers 
or  such  as  have  taken  personal  vengeance.     Cf.  c.  8,  Dist. 

70.  A  cleric  who  makes  a  buffoon  of  himself,  or  talks 
obscenely    must    be    discharged   from    his    office.     Cf.  c.   6, 
Dist.  xlvi. 

71.  Synods  shall  be  held  annually.1 

Some  other  canons  supposed  to  proceed  from  the  Synod 
of  Agde  are  found  in  the  Corpus  jur.  can.  c.  25,  Dist.  Ixxxvi.; 
c.  4,  C.  xiv.  q.  3;  and  c.  12,  C.  ii.  q.  4.  Further,  in 
the  old  collections  of  Ivo  and  Burchard,  in  Mansi,  I.e.  p. 
338  sqq. 

SEC.  223.  Supposed  Synod  at  Toulouse,  Conciliabulum  at 
Antioch,  A.D.  507  and  508. 

Euricius,  the  aged  bishop  of  Lemovicum  (Limoges),  was 
not  present  at  the  Synod  of  Agde  on  account  of  bodily 
infirmity.  From  the  correspondence  which  took  place 
between  him  and  the  president  of  the  Synod,  Archbishop 
Caesarius  of  Aries,  we  learn  that  in  the  following  year  (507) 
a  Synod  was  held  at  Toulouse  (situated,  like  Agde,  in  the 
West  Gothic  kingdom),  and  that  Spanish  bishops  also  were 

1  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  323  sqq.;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  997  sqq. 

FIRST  SYNOD  OF  ORLEANS,  A.D.   511.  87 

invited  to  it.1  In  consequence  of  this  many,  especially  of 
the  older  historians,  suppose  a  Synod  of  Toulouse  to  have 
been  held  A.D.  507,  without  giving  any  further  information 
about  it.  But  Baluze  even  in  his  time  showed 2  that  such  a 
Synod  could  not  have  been  held,  since  at  that  very  time  the 
Frankish  King  Chlodwig  overcame  the  Gothic  King  Alaric  II. 
in  war  and  killed  him  (507),  so  that  the  West  Gothic  king- 
dom, full  of  the  noise  of  war,  afforded  no  facility  for  peaceful 
discussions  at  Synods. 

Theophanes  gives  us  intelligence  of  an  Antiochene  Con- 
ciliabulum,  A.D.  508  or  509.  At  the  command  of  the  Greek 
Emperor  Anastasius,  Flavian,  archbishop  of  Antioch,  had 
shortly  before  signed  the  infamous  Henoticon  of  the  Emperor 
Zeno  (see  vol.  iii.  sec.  208),  and  now  assembled  the  bishops 
who  were  under  him  at  a  Synod,  the  decree  of  which,  now 
lost,  solemnly  recognised  the  Synods  of  Nicaea,  Constantinople, 
and  Ephesus,  but  passed  over  that  of  Chalcedon  in  silence ; 
pronounced  anathemas  over  Diodorus  of  Tarsus  and  Theodore 
of  Mopsuestia ;  and  put  forth  four  chapters  (propositions), 
presumably  the  work  of  Acacius  of  Constantinople,  which,  in 
opposition  to  the  doctrine  of  Chalcedon,  combat  the  expression 
"  in  two  natures."  3 

SEC.  224.  First  Synod  of  Orleans,  A.D.  511. 

After  Clovis  (Chlodwig),  king  of  the  Franks,  had  con- 
quered the  portion  of  the  West  Gothic  kingdom  which  lay 
in  Gaul  (507  and  508),  he  summoned  a  great  Synod  to 
Orleans,  Aurelianensis  I.,  on  the  10th  of  July  511,  at  which 
there  were  present  not  only  bishops  of  the  Frankish,  but  also 
of  the  former  West  Gothic  kingdom,  altogether  thirty  two, 
among  them  five  metropolitans,  Cyprian  of  Bordeaux  (prob- 
ably president  of  the  Synod),  Tetradius  of  Bourges,  Licinius 
of  Tours,  Leontius  of  Elusa  (Eauze),  and  Gildared  of  Eouen. 
Many  of  those  present  had  been  members  of  the  Synod  of 
Agde,  from  which  many  canons  were  now  repealed  at 
Orleans.  That  Chlodwig  had  invited  the  bishops  to  the 

1  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  343.  2  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p   347. 

3  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  347;  Pagi,  Critica  in  Annales  Earonii,  ad  ann.  510X  n.  2. 


Synod  is  stated  in  the  short  preface  which  they  prefixed 
to  the  minutes,  and  is  clear  also  from  the  letter  of  the 
Synod  to  Chlodwig,  which  mentions  that  he  had  also  pre- 
scribed the  points  on  which  they  should  take  counsel,  and 
that  the  bishops  had  asked  for  the  confirmation  of  their 
decrees  by  the  King.1  These  were  the  thirty-one  canons 
which  followed : — 

1.  If    murderers,    adulterers,    and    thieves    have    taken 
refuge  in  the  church,  then,  in  accordance  with  canonical  and 
Eoman  law,  they  are  not  to  be  taken  from  the  porch  of  the 
church  or  the  residence  of  the  bishop  until  an  assurance  has 
been  given  by  an  oath  on  the  Gospels  that  they  shall  be  free 
from  all  punishments  (de  omni  pcenarum  genere  sint  securi), 
on  the  condition  that  the  guilty  one  shall  give  satisfaction  to 
the    injured    party.      Whoever    breaks    this    oath    shall    be 
excluded   from  the  Church   and  from   all  intercourse    with 
Catholics.     If,  however,  the  offender  will  not  agree  to  the 
demand  laid  down,  and  from  fear  flies  from  the  church,  then 
he  shall  not  be  required  of  the  clergy  of  the  church,  that  is, 
they  shall  not  be  held  responsible  for  him.     Gratian  united 
this  'canon  and  the  third  as  c.   36,    C.   xvii.    q.    4,  in    his 

2.  If  anyone  has  ravished  a  woman  and  flies  with  her 
into  the  church  (for  asylum),  then  the  ravished  person,  if  she 
has  been  manifestly  subjected  to  violence,  must  immediately 
be  set  at  liberty.     The  ravisher,  however,  shall  be  secured 
for  further  punishment,  and  shall  either  be  made  a  slave,  or 
he  must  purchase  his  release  from  slavery.     If,  however,  the 
maiden  has  either  before  or  after  the  seduction  consented  to 
it,  then  she  shall  be  sent  back  to  her  father  if  he  is  still 
alive,  with  an  excuse  (for  her  deed),  and  the  ravisher  must 
afford  satisfaction  to  the  father  in  the  manner  prescribed  (i.e. 
become  his  slave,  or  purchase  his  freedom  from  him).2     In 
the  Corpus  jur.  can.  c.  3,  C.  xxxvi.  q.  1. 

1  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  350  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1008  ;  Sirmond,  Concilia  Gallise, 
t.  i.  p.  177. 

2  Remi  Ceillier,  I.e.  p.  670,  has  quite  erroneously  interpreted  the  close  of 
this  canon,  as  though  the  father  in  such  a  case  had  no  claim  on  the  ravisher  of 
his  daughter.     The  true  meaning  was  seen  by  Bohmer  in  his  Note  30*  to  this 
passage  in  the  Corpus  jur.  can. 

FIRST  SYNOD   OF  ORLEANS,   A.D.   511.  89 

3.  If  a  slave  has  taken  refuge  in  the  church,  he  shall,  if 
his  master  has  taken  the  required  oath  (can.  1),  be  immedi- 
ately sent  back  to  him.     If  the  master  does  not  keep  his 
oath,  he  shall  be  excluded  from  all  intercourse  with  Catholics. 
If,  however,  the  slave,  in  spite  of  his  master  having  taken 
the  oath  for  impunity,  refuses  to  leave  the  church,  then  his 
master  may  remove  him  by  force.     Cf.  c.  36,  C.  xvii.  q.  4. 

4.  No  layman  is  to  be  ordained  a  cleric  except  by  com- 
mand   of    the    King,    or    with    concurrence    of    the   judge. 
Nevertheless,  the  sons  and  descendants  of  clerics  shall  remain 
in  the  power  of  the  bishops  (i.e.  such  may  be  ordained  with- 
out permission  from  any  other  quarter). 

5.  The  products  of  gifts  and  fields  granted  by  the  King 
to  the  Church,  together  with  the  immunity  of  the  clergy, 
shall  be  expended  on  the  repairs  of  churches,  the  maintenance 
of  the  clergy  and  the  poor,  or  for  the  redemption  of  prisoners. 
Bishops  who  are  negligent  herein  shall  be  publicly  censured 
by  the  comprovincial  bishops ;  and  if  this  does  not  avail,  they 
shall  be  excluded  from  the  fellowships  of   their  colleagues. 
(On  the  meaning  of  this  expression,  cf.  vol.  iii.  p.  406,  note 
1  on  can.  20  of  Chalcedon). 

6.  Whoever  makes  claims  upon  a  portion  of  the  Church's 
property,  or  of  the  bishop's  private  property,  but  in  a  proper 
manner,  without  insults,  is  not  from  this  circumstance  alone 
to  be  excluded  from  Church  communion.     Cf.  c.   20,  C.  ii. 
q.  7. 

7.  Abbots,  priests,  and  all   clerics  and  monks  may  not, 
without    trial    and    recommendation   by   the    bishop,    solicit 
princes  for  ecclesiastical  benefices.     Whoever  does  so  shall 
be  deprived  of  his  office  and  of  communion  until  such  time 
as  he  has  done  adequate  penance. 

8.  If  a  slave,  without  knowledge  of  his  master,  has  been 
ordained  deacon  or  priest  by  the  bishop  to  whom  his  servile 
condition  was  known,  he  shall  remain  in  his  clerical  position, 
but  the  bishop  must  make  double  reparation  for  him  to  that 
master.     But  if    the  bishop  was  not  aware  of  his  being  a 
slave,  then  the  same  compensation  shall  be  made  by  those 
who  gave  testimony  at  his  ordination  (that  he  was  free),  or 
asked  for  his  ordination.     Cf.  c.  19,  Dist.  liv. 


9.  If  a  deacon  or  priest  has  committed  a  capital  offence, 
he  shall  be  deprived  of  his  office,  and  of  communion  at  the 
same  time.     Cf.  c.  14,  Dist.  Ixxxi. 

10.  If  heretical  clerics  return  of  their  own  accord  to  the 
Church,  for  instance,  from  the  Arian  Goths,  they  shall  receive 
the    clerical  office  of   which  the  bishop   has   thought  them 
worthy  with  ordination  by  imposition  of  hands ;  and  heretical 
churches  shall  be  consecrated  in  the  same  manner  in  which 
Catholic  churches  are  wont  to  be  reconciled  (innovari). 

11.  Penitents  (ascetics;  cf.  note  on  c.  15   of  the  Synod 
of  Agde,  sec.  506,  above)  who  forget  their  vow  and  return  to 
the  secular  life,  shall  be  excluded  from  the  communion,  and 
from  all  intercourse  with  Catholics.     Whoever  eats  with  them 
is  by  that  act  excommunicated. 

12.  If  a  deacon  or  presbyter   has   entered    among    the 
penitents  to  do  penance  (see  former  canon),  he  may  never- 
theless, if    need    arises    and    no    other    clergy  are  at  hand, 
baptize  anyone.     Cf.  c.  14,  Dist.  Ixxxi. 

13.  If  the  widow  of  a  priest  or  deacon  marries  again, 
they    shall    both,  she    and    her   second    husband,  either   be 
punished  and  separated,  or,  if    they  persist  in  their    error, 
they  shall    together    be    excommunicated.     Cf.  c.   11,  Dist. 

14.  In  accordance  with  the  ancient  canons,  one-half  of 
the    oblations    placed    upon    the    altar  shall    belong  to  the 
bishop,  the  other  half  to  the  rest  of  the  clergy.     All  fields, 
however,  remain  in  the  power  (administration)  of  the  bishop. 
Cf.  c.  8,  C.  x.  q.  1. 

15.  All  that  is  presented  to  parishes  in  fields,  vineyards, 
slaves,  and  cattle,  remains,  in  accordance   with  the  ancient 
canons,  in  the  power  (administration)  of  the  bishop.     From 
that  which  is  offered  on  the  altar,  however,  he  receives  the 
third    part  (i.e.  of    the  offering  in  the    parish   churches  he 
receives  only  the  third  part,  of  the  offering  in  the  cathedral, 
according  to  can.  14,  the  half).     Cf.  c.  7,  C.  x.  q.  1. 

16.  The  bishop  shall  give  food  and  clothing  to  the  poor 
or  sick  who  can  no  longer  work,  as  far  as  he  can.     Cf.  c.  1, 
Dist.  Ixxxii 

17.  Churches,  whether  already  built  or  yet  to  be  built, 

FIRST  SYNOD  OF  ORLEANS,  A.D.   511.  91 

can  be  recognised  only  with  the  consent  of   the  bishop  in 
whose  diocese  they  lie.     Cf.  c.  10,  C.  xvl  q.  7. 

18.  No   one  may  marry  the  widow   of   his  brother,  or 
the  sister  of  his  deceased  wife.     Cf.  c.  61  of  Agde. 

19.  Abbots  are  under  the  bishop;  if  they  transgress,  they 
will  be  punished  by  him ;  and  once  a  year  they  must  assemble 
at  the   place   fixed   by   the  bishop.     Monks,  however,   owe 
reverent    obedience    to    their   abbot.     If    a    monk    acquires 
private    property,    the   abbot    shall  take  it   from    him    and 
spend  it  for  the    convent.     Monks  who  roam    about  shall, 
with  the  assistance  of    the  bishop,  be  caught  and  brought 
back.     The  abbot  who  does  not  chastise  such  monks,  or  who 
receives  a  strange   monk,  is    himself    in    fault.     Cf.  c.   16, 
C.  xviii.  q.  2. 

20.  A  monk  may  not  use  an  orarium  (pocket-handker- 
chief)   or    shoes   (tzangce)  in  the  monastery.     Cf.  c.   32,  C. 
xxvii.  q.  1. 

21.  If    anyone    has    become    a    monk,    and    afterwards 
marries,  he  can  never    obtain  an  ecclesiastical  office. — The 
second  part  of  c.  32,  C.  xxvii.  q.  1. 

22.  No  monk  may,  without  permission  of  the  bishop  and 
abbot,  leave  the  monastery  and  build  himself  a  cell.     Cf.  c. 
38  of  Agde,  and  c.  14,  C.  xviii.  q.  2. 

23.  If  a  bishop  gives  any  goods  to  clerics  or  monks  for 
usufruct,  there  arises  from  this,  however  long  it  may  be,  no 
prescription.     Cf.  c.  59  of  Agde,  and  c.  12,  C.  xvi.  q.  3. 

24.  Before  Easter  there  shall  be  kept,  not  a    Quinqua- 
gesima,    but    a    Quadragesima.       Cf.     c.     6,    De    Consecrat. 
Dist.  iii. 

25.  No  one  must  keep  Easter,  Christmas,  or  Pentecost 
in  his  villa  unless  he  is  sick.     Cf.  c.  21  of  Agde,  and  c.  5, 
De  Consecrat.  Dist.  iii. 

26.  The  people  must  not  leave  the  church  before  the  end 
of  Mass ;  and  if  a  bishop  is  present,  they  shall  first  receive 
the  blessing  from  him.     Cf.  c.  47  of  Agde,  and  65,  De  Con- 
secrat. Dist.  i. 

27.  All  churches  shall  celebrate  the  Eogations,  i.e.  the 
Litanies  before  Ascension  Day,  so  that  the  three  days'  fast 
ends  at  the  Festival  of  the  Ascension.     On  these  three  days, 


all  man-servants  and  maid-servants  (slaves,  male  and  female) 
shall  be  free  from  labour,  so  that  all  the  people  may  corne 
together  (at  divine  service).  Moreover,  on  these  three  days 
only  such  foods  shall  be  used  as  are  permitted  in  Lent.  Cf. 
c.  3,  De  Consecrat.  Dist.  iii. 

28.  Clerics  who  do  not  take  part  in  this  holy  work  (the 
Rogations)  shall  be  punished  according  to  the  judgment  of 
the  bishop.     Cf.  c.  5,  Dist.  xci. 

29.  In  regard  to  intercourse  with  strange  women,  the 
bishops,  priests,  and  deacons  must  observe  the  earlier  canons 
(e.g.,  cc.  10  and  11  of  Agde). 

30.  Fortune-telling,  auguries,  and  sortes  sanctorum  are  for- 
bidden under  pain  of  excommunication.     Cf.  c.  16  of  Vannes, 
c.  42  of  Agde,  and  c.  9,  C.  xxvi.  q.  5. 

31.  A  bishop,  unless  he  is  ill,  must  not  fail  in  attendance 
at  divine  service  on  Sunday  in  the  church  which  lies  nearest 
to  him.     Cf.  c.  4.  De  Consecrat.  Dist.  iii.1 

Besides  these  thirty-one  genuine  canons,  several  other 
doubtful  ones  are  attributed  to  our  Synod  by  Burchard, 
Gratian,  and  Ivo  of  Chartres,  which  Mansi2  collected,  but 
which  we  have  thought  we  might  omit,  as  they  are  not  found 
in  the  minutes  of  the  Synod.  Neither  do  we  include  a  letter 
from  King  Chlodwig,  said  to  have  been  addressed  to  this 
Synod,3  on  the  subject  of  the  liberation  of  the  Christians 
taken  in  the  war  with  the  West  Goths.  Sirmond4  showed 
long  ago  that  this  letter  has  no  connection  with  our  Synod, 
and  is  considerably  older. 

SEC.  225.  Oriental  Synods  on  the  Monophysite  Question. 

The  opponents  of  the  orthodox  Chalcedonian  faith  carried 
on  the  conflict  with  greater  violence  at  a  Synod  at  Sidon  in 
Palestine,  A.D.  511  and  512,5  than  at  the  Conciliabulum  of 

1  These  canons,  with  the  subscription  of  the  thirty-two  bishops  who  were 
present,  are  found  in  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  350  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1008  sqq. ; 
Sirmond,  Concilia  Gcdlise,  t.  i.  p.  177  sqq. 

2  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  359  sqq. 

3  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  346  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1007 ;  and  Sirmond,  I.e.  t.  i.  p.  176. 

4  Sirmond,  I.e.  p.  175. 

5  That  it  began  in  511  is  shown  by  Pagi,  ad  ann.  512,  n.  2  sqq. 

TWO   BRITISH   SYNODS,  A.D.   512  AND  516.  93 

Antioch,  recently  mentioned.  The  well-known  chronicler, 
Count  Marcellinus,  who  was  a  contemporary,  relates  in  his 
Chronicle  (sub  cans.  Pauli  et  Mussiani),  that,  at  the  command 
of  the  Byzantine  Emperor,  Anastasius  assembled  about  eighty 
unorthodox  bishops  at  Sidon,  in  order  to  persecute  the 
orthodox  bishops.  Flavian,  patriarch  of  Antioch  (who  in  the 
year  508  had  shown  himself  weak1),  and  John,  bishop  of 
Paltus  (in  Syria),  because  they  rejected  this  sacrilegious 
assembly,  were  exiled  into  the  fort  of  Petra,  where  Flavian 
died  a  confessor.2  John,  however,  was  set  free  by  Justin 
when  he  became  Emperor.  From  another  contemporary,  the 
priest  Cyril  of  Scythopolis,  we  learn  that  Soterichus,  arch- 
bishop of  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia,  and  Philoxenus  Xenaias 
(sec.  208),  bishop  of  Hierapolis,  were  the  heads  of  this 
assembly,  and  endeavoured  to  bring  about  a  rejection  of  the 
Synod  of  Chalcedon,  and  a  confirmation  of  the  doctrine  of 
Eutyches  and  Dioscurus.3 

Soon  afterwards,  at  another  Conciliabulum  of  the  Mono- 
physites  at  Antioch,  under  the  presidency  of  Xenaias,  its 
adherent  Severus  (sec.  208)  was  chosen  patriarch  of  Antioch. 
Another  similar  spurious  Synod  took  place  about  the  same 
time  at  Constantinople,  in  order  to  place  in  the  patriarchal 
throne  Timothy  Colon  or  litrobolus,  who  was  not  unfavour- 
able to  the  heresy  (sec.  208).  In  opposition  to  this  advance  of 
the  Monophysites,  the  leaders  of  the  monks  in  Palestine,  after 
the  orthodox  Patriarch  Elias  of  Jerusalem  had  been  expelled 
by  the  Emperor  Anastasius,  held,  in  this  city,  A.D.  512,  a 
kind  of  Synod  for  the  defence  of  the  orthodox  faith.4 

SEC.  226.   Two  British  Synods,  A.D.  512  and  516. 
In    the   same   year,   512,  before   the   conversion  of   the 

1  Pagi  (I.e.)  shows  from  Theophanes  that  Flavian  went  so  far  as  to  pass  over 
the  Council  of  Chalcedon  in  silence,  but  that  he  never  consented  to  its  being 
formally  anathematised.     Evagrius  (iii.   c.  32)  relates  that  he  resisted,  at  an 
earlier  period,  a  demand  of  this  kind,  in  opposition  to  the  Syrian  monks. 

2  A  similar  account  of  the  maltreatment  of  Flavian  in  the  seventh  (Ecu- 
menical Council  of  Nicaea,  Act  1,  is  given  in  the  Vitas.  Sabbse;  Hardouin,  t. 
iv.  p.  69. 

3  Maiisi,  t.  viii.  p.  371  sqq.  4  Mausi,  t.  viii.  pp.  374-378. 


Anglo-Saxons,  whilst  these  were  involved  in  numerous  and 
bloody  feuds  with  the  ancient  Britons,  and  only  the  province 
of  Wales  fully  retained  Christianity,  Bishop  Dulricius  of 
Llandaff  in  South  Wales,  at  a  British  Synod,  was  elected 
archbishop  of  the  Urbs  Legionum  on  the  river  Isca  (Caerleon 
on  Usk),  also  in  South  Wales,  and  Theliaus  was,  in  his  stead, 
elected  bishop  of  Llandaff.1 

Somewhat  later,  Dulricius  is  said  to  have  resigned  his 
bishopric,  and  gone  into  a  convent.  Thereupon,  at  a  numer- 
ous assembly  of  the  bishops  and  grandees  of  the  kingdom,  at 
the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  King  Arthur,  whose  uncle, 
David,  was  raised  to  be  archbishop  of  the  Urbs  Legionum, 
and  the  priest  Chelian  of  Llandaff,  with  the  assent  of  Hoel  L, 
the  British  king  in  Armorica  (Britanny  in  Gaul),  was  made 
bishop  of  Dola  (S.  Dol  in  Britanny).3  As  the  beginning  of 
the  reign  of  King  Arthur,  which,  however,  was  only  extended 
over  particular  parts  of  the  old  British  kingdom,  is  generally 
placed  in  the  year  516,  so  this  synodus  mixta  (see  vol.  i.  p.  4) 
would  be  assigned  to  the  year  516.  But  the  history  of 
Arthur  is  too  much  involved  in  legends  to  enable  us  to 
assume  anything  here  with  certainty. 

SEC.  227.  Synod  at  Agaunum  or  S.  Moritz  betiveen  515 
and  523. 

The  Arian  King  G-undobald  of  Burgundy  had,  as  we 
know,  become  somewhat  more  favourably  disposed  to  the 
true  faith  through  the  influence  of  the  orthodox  bishops  of 
his  kingdom,  especially  S.  Avitus  of  Vienne,  but  was  not  yet 
entirely  won  over.  His  son  and  successor  Sigismund  had 
come  back  to  the  Church  during  his  father's  lifetime,  and 
gave  evidence  of  his  piety  in  various  ways,  but  especially  by 
restoring  and  enlarging  the  monastery  of  S.  Moritz  at 
Agaunum  (now  S.  Maurice  in  the  Swiss  canton  of  Vallais), 
founded  even  before  the  times  of  Chlodwig  (Clovis)  in  honour 
of  the  martyrs  of  the  legion  of  the  Thebaid,  together  with  the 
church  belonging  to  it.  Marius  Aventicensis  assures  us,  in 
his  Chronicle,  that  this  building  was  undertaken  (i.e.  begun) 

1  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  378.  -  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  539. 

SYNOD  AT  AGAUNUM   BETWEEN  515  AND  523.  95 

under  the  consulate  of  Florentius  and  Anthemius,  A.D.  515. 
When  it  was  completed  is  unknown.  In  the  fourth  volume 
of  Grallia  Christiana,  p.  12  sqq.,  an  old  document  is  given, 
frequently  reprinted,  the  minutes  of  a  Synod,  according  to 
which,  after  the  completion  of  the  building  of  the  church  in 
question,  at  Agaunum,  a  Synod  was  held  in  the  presence  of 
King  Sigismund.1  In  what  year  this  took  place  cannot  be 
ascertained  with  certainty.  Eemi  Ceillier  (I.e.  p.  675)  assumes 
that  the  building  of  the  church  was  completed  in  515,  and 
so,  that  the  Synod  took  place  in  the  same  year;  but  the 
authors  of  the  Histoire  litUraire  de  la  France  (t.  iii.  p.  89)  the 
learned  Benedictines,  decide  with  preference  for  517,  and 
Pagi  for  523.  The  latter  knew,  from  the  Chronicle  of  Marius 
Aventicensis,  that  King  Sigismund  had,  in  the  year  522, 
caused  Sigeric,  his  son  by  the  first  marriage,  to  be  put  to 
death  at  the  instigation  of  his  wicked  stepmother.  He  read, 
moreover,  in  Gregory  of  Tours  (Bk.  iii.  cc.  5  and  6)  that  the 
King,  out  of  penitence  for  this  deed,  had  withdrawn  for  a 
long  time  into  the  monastery  of  Agaunum,  and  had  here 
instituted  perpetual  worship.  Since,  however,  this  perpetual 
worship  was  ordained  at  the  Synod  of  which  we  are  speaking, 
Pagi  concluded  that  the  holding  of  the  Synod  must  be  placed 
after  this  incident  with  Sigeric.2  He  finds  a  confirmation  of 
this  supposition  in  the  minutes  of  the  Synod  of  Agaunum 
itself,  since  here  almost  at  the  beginning  of  the  Synod,  King 
Sigismund  says  to  the  bishops  :  "  You  must  comfort  me  in  my 
sorrow."  But  all  that  the  bishops  bring  forward  has  not  the 
least  reference  to  a  sorrow  of  such  a  kind  on  the  part  of  the 
King,  but  are  exhortations  to  the  Christian  life  generally ; 
and  the  sorrow  of  Sigismund  apparently  had  its  ground  only 
in  this,  that,  after  his  renunciation  of  the  Arian  heresy,  he 
had  not  yet  come  to  a  right  knowledge  of  the  way  to  please 

But  not  only  the  date  of  the  Synod  of  Agaunum  is  con- 
testable,  its  very  existence  was  called  in  question,  first  by  the 
Bollandists  (P.  Chifflet)  in  the  first  volume  of  January  (at 

1  This  document  is  given  also  in  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  531  sqq. ;  but  not  in 

•  Pagi,  ad  ann.  515,  n.  6  sqq.,  and  ad  ami.  522,  n.  10  sqq. 


January  6),  and  still  more  by  Le  Cointe  (Annales  Eccles. 
Francor.  t.  L  p.  227)  j1  but  it  has  been  defended  by  Mabillon 
(Annales  Ord.  Benedict,  lib.  i.  s.  71),  Pagi  (ad  ann.  522,  n.  14 
and  15),  and  Kemi  Ceillier  (I.e.  p.  675  sqq.).  An  intermediate 
view  has  been  maintained  by  Professor  Wagemann  of 
Gb'ttingen,2  who  holds  that  the  Acts  of  this  Synod  are  certainly 
spurious,  but  that  they  contain  a  genuine  nucleus. 

The  minutes  consist  of  two  parts :  (a)  the  transactions  of 
the  bishops  with  the  King  and  among  themselves,  and  (b)  a 
deed  of  gift  of  Sigismund,  which  was  embodied  in  the  minutes. 
At  the  beginning  of  the  first  part  it  is  said  that  on  the  30th 
of  April  the  Council  was  held  by  sixty  bishops  and  as  many 
Comites.  The  conclusion,  on  the  contrary,  bears  date  the  15th 
of  May,  so  that  the  Synod  would  have  lasted  sixteen  days. 
As  in  the  beginning  of  the  first  part,  so  also  at  the  beginning 
of  the  second,  the  reference  is  made  to  sixty  bishops  and  an 
equal  number  of  counts ;  but  in  the  subscriptions  we  find 
only  three  bishops  and  eight  counts.  The  three  bishops  were 
Maximus  of  Geneva,  Victor  of  Gratianopolis  (Grenoble),  and 
Viventiolus  of  Lyons.  Besides  these  in  the  minutes  we  come 
upon  a  fourth  as  orator,  Theodore,  bishop  of  Sedun  (Sitten  or 
Sim  in  the  Canton  Vallais),  so  that  it  is  clear  the  subscriptions, 
as  we  now  have  them,  are  not  complete.  This  is  clear  also 
from  the  fact  that  they  do  not  mention  Avitus  of  Vienne, 
who,  however,  preached  at  this  solemnity  at  Agaunum.  The 
sermon  itself  is  lost,  but  its  title  is  found  among  the  works  of 
Avitus.3  But  Le  Cointe  made  serious  objection  to  the 
number  of  sixty,  and  remarked  with  propriety  that  the  whole 
Burgundian  kingdom  had  for  a  long  time  not  numbered  so 
many  bishops,  but  only  twenty-seven.  Consequently  he 
brings  into  doubt  the  genuineness  of  our  document.  But  it  is 
possible  that  the  number  Ix.  may  have  been  put  by  an  error 
for  the  number  ix.,  as  Pagi  thinks,  or  it  may  be  supposed  that 
a  number  of  neighbouring  bishops  from  other  territories  had 

1  This  famous  oratorian,  Le  Cointe,  as  is  well  known,  was  attached  to  the 
French  Embassy  at  the  making  of  the  Peace  of  Westphalia,  and  the  sketch  of 
the  preliminaries  of  the  treaty  was  drawn  up  by  him. 

2  Gotting.  gelehrle  Anzeigen,  1867,  S.  378. 

3  Another  sermon,  also  preached  on  that  occasion  by  Avitus,  has  been  dis- 
covered ;  see  Gotting.  gel.  Anzeigen,  1867,  S.  369  sqq. 

SYNOD  AT  AGAUNUN   BETWEEN   515  AND  523.  97 

come  to  be  present  at  the  great  solemnity  instituted  by  the 

When  all  the  bishops  were  assembled,  King  Sigismund 
was  the  first  to  speak,  and  expressed  his  conviction  that  this 
assembly  would  enjoy  the  divine  assistance.  At  his  wish  the 
bishops  set  before  him,  through  the  mouth  of  Maximus  of 
Geneva,  the  leading  rules  of  Christian  morality  in  the  most 
condensed  form ;  and  after  this  was  done,  and  all  who  were 
present  (among  whom  were  many  of  the  laity)  had  expressed 
their  approval  of  the  statement  made  by  Maximus,  Bishop 
Theodore  of  Sitten  proposed  for  discussion  the  question, 
What  should  be  done  with  the  bodies  of  the  martyrs  of  the 
Thebaid,  Maurice  and  his  companions,  who  were  buried  here ; 
that  is  to  say,  whether  and  how  they  should  be  removed  into 
the  new  church,  as  it  was  not  in  their  power  to  do  accord- 
ing to  their  deserts,  and  build  a  particular  church  for  each 
one  ?  The  King  exclaimed :  "  Oh  that  I  could  only  be  the 
fellow  of  these  saints  ! "  The  bishops,  however,  decided,  after 
lengthy  consultation,  that  only  those  of  the  martyrs  whose 
names  were  known,  Maurice,  Exuperius,  Candidus,  and  Victor, 
should  be  placed  within  the  new  basilica,  and  that  the  other 
bodies  should  be  placed  together  in  another  secure  and  suit- 
able place ;  that  a  sacred  watch  (of  priests)  should  be  given  to 
them ;  and  that,  day  and  night,  unceasingly,  the  office  should 
be  sung  at  their  grave.  At  the  same  time  Hymnemundus 
was  appointed  by  the  bishops  and  the  King  as  abbot  over  the 
monastery  of  S.  Maurice.  In  order  to  carry  on  the  perpetual 
psalmody  the  monks  were  to  be  divided  into  nine  bands 
(normce),  who  should  in  their  turn  keep  up  the  singing  of 
the  canonical  Hours.  The  king  approved  of  this  arrangement. 

This  perpetual  psalmody  is  the  second  reason  for  Le 
Cointe's  declaring  the  whole  document  spurious,  because,  as 
he  thinks,  this  custom  was  at  that  time  wholly  unknown  in 
the  West,  and  was  only  at  a  later  period  borrowed  from  the 
Akoimette  of  the  East.  Mabillon,1  however,  and  after  him 
Pagi2  and  Remi  Oeillier,3  showed  that,  in  the  sixth  and 
seventh  centuries,  uninterrupted  psalmody  had  been  intro- 
duced into  several  monasteries  in  France,  for  example,  into 

1  I.e.  p.  28  sq.  -'  Ad  aim.  522,  u.  11-14.  3  I.e.  p.  676. 

iv.  7 


S.  Denis  by  Dagobert  the  Great,  and  this,  as  the  documents 
affirm,  in  imitation  of  the  institution  of  Agaunum. 

The  institution  of  the  perpetual  psalmody  rendered  it 
necessary  that  a  new  rule  should  be  drawn  up  for  the  monks 
of  Agaunum,  different  from  that  of  the  other  monasteries ; 
for  it  was  plain  that  they  would  be  unable  to  discharge  many 
of  the  duties  and  labours  prescribed  to  the  latter.  The  Synod, 
however,  decided  not  to  go  into  full  details  on  the  subject, 
but  delegated  this  to  the  personal  discretion  of  the  Abbot 
Hymnemundus,  and  made  only  a  few  regulations,  namely — 
That  for  each  of  the  nine  divisions  of  the  monks  a  dean 
should  be  appointed ;  that  the  clothing  should  be  adapted  to 
the  temperature  of  the  monastery ;  that  there  should  be  only 
one  dormitory,  only  one  refectory,  and  only  one  heated 
chamber  provided ;  that  no  monk  should  go  out  without  the 
permission  of  the  president ;  that  the  abbot  for  the  time 
being  should  be  sufficiently  instructed  in  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  that  he  might  be  able  to  edify  others,  and  that 
when  need  required,  the  abbot  should  have  recourse  to  the 
apostolic  see. 

The  second  part  of  the  minutes,  as  we  have  remarked, 
contains  the  deed  of  gift  of  Sigismund,  in  which  he  says  that 
he  grants  ad  luminaria  vel  stipendia  monachorum,  i.e.  for  the 
support  of  the  monks l  and  for  the  salvation  of  his  own  soul, 
to  the  monastery  of  Agaunum  certain  goods  and  possessions 
in  the  districts  of  Lyons,  Vienne,  Grenoble,  Aosta  (in  Pied- 
mont), Geneva,  Aventicum,  (Avenche),  Lausanne,  BesanQon, 
etc.,  together  with  all  that  appertained  to  them  in  houses, 
slaves,  freedmen,  forests,  vineyards,  etc. 

SEC.  228.  Synods  in  Illyria  and  Epirus,  and  at  Lyons,  in 
the  years  515  and  516. 

Theophanes  in  his  Chronicle,  and-  after  him  Anastasius  in 

1  Instead  of  saying  that  "one  presented  something  to  the  Church,"  it  was 
usual  to  employ  the  formula,  "lie  presented  it  ad  luminaria  ecdcsiw,"  i.e.  that 
they  might  be  able  to  procure  the  many  necessary  lights.  Soon,  however,  the 
expression  ad  luminaria  acquired  the  further  meaning  of  ad  fabricam  ecclcsiss. 
Of.  Du  Cange,  Glossar.  medise  et  infimx  latinitatis,  s.w.  luminaria  and 

SYNODS  IN   ILLYKIA,   EPIRUS,  AND  LYONS,   515  AND  51«.       00 

his  Church  History,  relate  that  in  the  year  515  forty  bishops 
of  Illyria  and  Greece  assembled  in  a  Synod  and  here  renounced 
their  metropolitan,  the  archbishop  of  Thessalonica,  because 
he  had  gone  over  to  the  side  of  the  Monophysites  from  fear 
of  the  Emperor  Anastasius,  and  had  entered  into  Church 
communion  with  Timothy  of  Constantinople  (see  above,  sec. 
225).  At  the  same  time,  they  sent  ambassadors  to  the 
Pope,  and  confirmed  in  writing  their  communion  with  the 
Eoman  Church.1 

In  the  following  year,  5 16,  another  Synod  was  held  south 
from  Illyria  in  the  province  of  old  Epirus — Epirus  proper, 
since  Epirus  Nova  is  Illyris  Cfrceca.  This  Synod  made  over  to 
John  the  metropolitan  see  of  Nicopolis,  rendered  vacant  by 
the  death  of  Alcyson.  John  immediately  sent  the  deacon 
Rufinus  with  the  news  of  his  appointment  to  Pope  Hormisdas 
to  Rome,  and  assured  him  in  a  letter,  which  is  still  extant,2 
that  he  venerated  the  four  Councils  of  Nicaea,  Constantinople, 
Ephesus,  and  Chalcedon,  whereas  he  anathematised  Dioscurus, 
Timothy  -ZElurus,  and  other  heads  of  the  Monophysites,  and 
perfectly  conformed  to  the  letters  of  Leo  I.  The  Pope  was 
requested  to  prescribe  to  him  more  fully  what  he  should 
observe  and  from  what  he  should  keep  aloof.  A  second  letter 
was  addressed  by  the  collective  members  of  the  Synod  (seven 
bishops  besides  the  Metropolitan  John)  to  the  Pope,  in  which 
they  acquaint  him  with  the  death  of  Alcyson  and  the  election 
of  John,  on  whose  zeal  for  the  orthodox  cause,  and  on  whose 
obedience  to  Rome,  they  lay  special  stress.  In  conclusion, 
they  ask  the  papal  recognition  of  John.3 

Hormisdas  answered  them,  in  November  516,  by  three 
letters.  The  first,  addressed  to  the  new  Archbishop  John,  of 
date  November  15,  516,  exhorts  generally  to  steadfastness 
in  orthodoxy,  and  at  the  conclusion,  for  more  particular 
instruction  as  to  the  manner  in  which  John  should  receive 
those  who  should  return  to  the  Church,  he  remarks  that  an 
Indwulus  was  added.4  What  this  was  composed  of  will  be 

1  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  f>37. 

-  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  401  sq.  ;  wanting  in  Hardonin. 

3  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  404  ;  Hardouiu,  t.  ii.  p.  1027. 

4  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  402  sq. 


shown  further  on ;  at  present  the  remark  suffices,  that  many 
of  John's  suffragans  had  lately  taken  the  side  of  the  unecclesi- 
astical  party,  the  Monophysites  or  Henoticans,  as  we  see  from 
the  words  quoted  above,  and  from  the  letter  of  the  Pope  to 
the  Synod  presently  to  be  described.  In  the  second  letter  to 
John,  of  date  November  19,  516,  thus  only  a  few  days  later, 
request  is  made  that  the  new  archbishop  will  obtain  the 
subscription  of  all  his  bishops  to  a  Libellus  appended  by  the 
Pope,  stating  that  Homisdas  will  send  the  Roman  subdeacon 
Pulion  to  Nicopolis  *  with  these  letters  and  other  documents. 
This  LibelliLs  is  in  no  way  identical  with  the  previously 
mentioned  Indiculus.  It  is,  in  fact,  nothing  else  than  that 
confession  of  faith,  Regula  Fidei,  with  anathematisms  over 
Nestorius,  Eutyches,  Dioscurus,  etc.,  which  the  bishops  of 
Epirus,  on  March  18  of  the  following  year,  sent  to  the  Pope 
with  their  subscriptions. 

This  confession,  so  well  known  afterwards,  under  the  title 
formula  Hormisdce,  and  the  often  quoted  Regula  Fidei  at  the 
latest  Vatican  Council,  runs  thus :  "  Prima  salus  est,  regulam 
rectse  fidei  custodire  et  a  constitutis  patrum  nullatenus 
deviare.  Et  quia  non  potest  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi  prse- 
termitti  sententia  dicentis:  Tu  es  Petrus,  et  super  lianc  pctram 
cedificabo  ecclesiam  meam,  etc. ;  hsec  quse  dicta  sunt  rerum 
probantur  effectibus,  QUIA  IN  SEDE  APOSTOLICA  IMMACULATA 


"  Ab  hac  ergo  spe  et  fide  separari  minime  cupientes  et 
patrum  sequentes  in  omnibus  constituta,  anathematizamus 
omnes  hsereticos  prsecipue  Nestorium  haereticum  qui  quondam 
Constantinopolitanae  fuit  urbis  Episcopus  damnatus  in  concilio 
Ephesino  a  Cselestino  papa  urbis  Eomee,  et  a  sancto  Cyrillo 
Alexandrinse  civitatis  antistite  ;  una  cum  ipso  anathematizantes 
Eutychetem  et  Dioscorum  Alexandrinum  in  sancta  synodo, 
quam  sequimur  et  amplectimur,  Chalcedonensi  damnatos ;  his 
Timotheum  adjicientes  parricidam,  ^Elurum  cognomento,  et 
discipulum  quoque  ejus  atque  sequacem  Petrum  vel  Acacium, 
qui  in  eorum  communionis  societate  permansit ;  quia  quorum 
se  communioni  miscuit,  illorum  similem  meruit  in  damnatione 
sententiam ;  Petrum  nihilominus  Antiochenum  damnantes 

1  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  407  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  1030. 

SYNODS   IN   ILLYRIA,   EPIRUS,  AND   LYONS,  515  AND  516.    101 

cum  sequacibus  suis  et  omnium  suprascriptorum.  Qua- 
propter  suscipimus  et  approbamus  omnes  Epistolas  Leonis 
papge  universas,  quas  de  religione  Christiana  conscripsit. 



tit  in  una  communion  vobiscum,  quam  sedes  apostolica  prae- 
dicat,  esse  merear,  IN  QUA  EST  INTEGRA  ET  VERAX  CHRISTIANA 


The  third  letter  of  the  Pope,  like  the  second,  dated 
November  19,  516,  is  directed  to  the  Synod  of  Epirus.  He 
expresses  his  pleasure  that  the  bishops  of  that  country, 
although  somewhat  late,  had  returned  to  the  orthodox 
doctrine,  and  explains  clearly  that  not  only  Eutyches,  but 
also  Dioscurus,  Timothy  (^Elurus),  Peter,  Acacius,  and  other 
later  heads  of  the  anti-ecclesiastical  party  (also  the  Henoticans) 
were  to  be  rejected  and  to  be  abhorred.  He  could  have  wished 
that  the  bishops  in  their  letters  on  all  these  people  had  ex- 
pressed themselves  as  clearly  as  their  Metropolitan  John  had 
done  in  his  letter  to  the  Pope.2  As,  however,  they  had  not 
done  this,  they  were  to  subscribe  the  Libellus  appended.3 

Finally,  we  have  another  document  of  Pope  Hormisdas 
belonging  to  this  time,  the  Indicuhis  already  mentioned.  It 
is  addressed,  not  to  Archbishop  John,  but  to  the  Eoman 
subdeacon  Pulion,  whom  the  Pope  sent  as  his  Nuntius  to 
Epirus,  and  has  the  following  content :  If  the  archbishop  of 
Nicopolis  has  received  the  papal  letters,  he  should  assemble 
the  bishops  of  his  parochia  (here  meaning  province)  and  make 
them  subscribe  the  Libellus  appended.  If,  however,  the  arch- 
bishop should  regard  this  as  too  troublesome,  he  could  select 

1  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  407  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1030.  Somewhat  later,  A.D.  519, 
Pope  Hormisdas  laid  this  confession  of  faith  before  Archbishop  John  of  Constan- 
tinople and  the  Orientals  for  subscriptions  (cf.  sec.  233,  and  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  451). 
and  so  in  his  letter  to  the  Spanish  bishops  (Mansi,  I.e.  p.  467).  Later  Popes 
repeated  the  same,  and  in  particular  Pope  Hadrian  n.  demanded  of  the  Oriental 
bishops  who  took  the  side  of  Photius,  the  subscriptions  of  the  Formula 
Hormisdse,  enlarged  with  additions  ;  and  the  eighth  (Ecumenical  Synod  approved 
of  this.  Mansi,  t.  xvi.  p.  28  ;  Hardouin,  t.  v.  p.  773.  Cf.  ConeUiengesch.  iv. 
S.  375. 

-  The  Pope  referred  to  the  anathema  on  the  heads  of  the  Henoticans,  as  we 
shall  see  later  on,  sec.  233. 

s  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  405  sq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1028  sqq. 


some  men  who  should  accompany  the  Nuntius  to  the  different 
bishops,  that  they  might  subscribe  in  his  presence.  Pulion 
was  also  to  take  care  that  the  papal  letters  should  be  read 
before  all  the  people,  at  least  before  the  clergy.1 

To  the  same  year,  516,  belongs  also  a  Synod  at  Lyons, 
of  which  we  know  nothing  more  than  its  existence,  and  that 
Avitus  of  Vienne  and  Bishop  Chartenius  (his  see  unknown) 
were  present.  And  so  much  we  owe  to  the  twenty-eighth 
letter  of  Avitus.2 

SEC.  229.  Synods  at  Tarragona,  A.D.  516,  and  at 
Gerunda,  A.D.  517. 

In  the  sixth  year  of  King  Theoderic,  that  is,  when  the 
famous  East  Gothic  King,  Theoderic  the  Great,  acted  as 
guardian  to  his  grandson  Amalric,  the  West  Gothic  King  in 
Spain,  then  a  minor3  under  the  consulate  of  Peter  (A.D.  516), 
on  the  6th  of  November  the  Synod  of  Tarragona  was  held 
in  the  name  of  Christ.  So  we  read  in  the  short  preface  to 
the  Chapters  on  Canons  passed  by  the  Synod.  There  were 
present,  as  the  subscriptions  show,  Archbishop  John  of 
Tarragona,  the  president  of  the  Synod,  and  his  suffragans 
Paul  of  Impuria  (Empuria),  Frontinian  of  Gerunda,  Agritius 
(Agrocius)  of  Barcelona,  Ursus  of  Dertosa,  Camidius  (or 
Einidius)  of  Ansona,  and  Nibridius  of  Egara.  Besides  these, 
there  are  named  from  other  ecclesiastical  provinces,  Orontius 
of  Illiberis  (unless  it  should  be  Ilerdita,  which  lay  in  the 
province  of  Tarragona),  Vincentius  of  Caesar-Augusta  (Sara- 
gossa),  and  Hector  of  Carthagina,  which  is  mentioned  as 
metropolis.  By  this  is  meant  only  its  dignity  as  civil 
metropolis  of  the  Provincia  Cathaginiensis  established  in 
Spain  by  Diocletian ;  in  its  ecclesiastical  position  Carthagina 
belonged  to  the  province  of  Toledo. 

These  ten  bishops  decreed  as  follows : — 

1.  Those  clerics  and  monks  who  are  allowed  to  support 

1  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  408  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1031. 

2  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  538. 

3Amalric's  mother,  the  widow  of  Alaric  n.,  was  a  daughter  of  the  East 
Gothic  Theoderic. 

SYNODS  AT  TARKAOONA,  A.D.  516;  OERUNDA,  A.D.  ol7.  10?) 

their  relatives  may  give  them  what  is  necessary,  but  they 
must  put  an  end  to  their  visits  to  them  as  soon  as  possible, 
and  not  live  with  them.  At  these  visits  they  must  always 
take  an  approved  witness  with  them.  If  a  cleric  acts  in 
opposition  to  this  command,  he  shall  lose  his  office;  and  a 
monk  shall  be  imprisoned  in  his  cell,  and  do  penance  on  bread 
and  water. 

2.  No  cleric  shall  engage  in   buying  cheap  and   selling 
dear.     Taken  from  Gratian,  c.  3,  C.  xiv.  q.  4. 

3.  If  a  cleric  has  lent  money  to  anyone  in  need,  on  con- 
dition of  being  indemnified  for  it  by  wine  or  fruit  at  the  time 
when  these  are  wont  to  be  sold,  and  the  debtor  has  not  the 
necessary   supply,   the  lender    shall   receive    back    the    loan 
without  any  increase.     See  Corpus  jur.  can.  c.  5,  C.  xiv.  q.  4. 

4.  No  bishop,  or  presbyter,  or  cleric  shall  sit  in  judg- 
ment on   Sunday.     They  may,  however,  settle  quarrels  on 
other    days,    with    exception    of    criminal    cases.     Cf.   c.    1, 
C.  xv.  q.  4. 

5.  If   anyone  is   consecrated  bishop,  not  in   the  metro- 
politan city,  i.e.  not  by  the  metropolitan  himself,  but  with 
his  consent,  he  must  present  himself  before  the  metropolitan 
within   two  months,  in   order  to  receive  his  more  personal 
directions.     Cf.  c.  8,  Dist.  Ixv. 

6.  If  a  bishop,  notwithstanding   the  admonition  of  the 
metropolitan,  fails  to  come  to  a  Synod  without  being  hindered 
by  serious  illness,  he  must  be  excluded  from  the  communio 
charitatis  with  the  other  bishops  until  the  next  Council.     See 
vol.  iii.  p.  405,  note,  and  c.  14,  Dist.  xviii. 

7.  If  a  priest  and   a  deacon  are  appointed  to  a  rural 
church    (ecclesia    dioecesana,   cf.   sec.    222,    canon    54,  note), 
together  with   other  clerics,  those  two  shall  take  weeks  in 
turn.     In  the  one  week  the  priest,  in  the  other  the  deacon, 
shall  provide  for  divine  service,  which  must  daily  consist  of 
matins  and  vespers.1     On  Saturday,  however,  all  the  clerics 
must  appear  at  vespers,  so  as  to  be  the  more  certain  to  be 
present  on  Sunday.     In  some  churches,  in  consequence  of  the 
absence  of  the  clergy,  even  the  lights  are  not  provided. 

1  So  that,  at  that  time,  there  was  not  a  daily  Mass,  as  the  deacon  could  take 
divine  service  on  week  days. 


8.  Since  it  is  known  that  many  rural  churches  (ecclesice 
dioeccsance)  are  in  a  bad  state,  the  bishop,  in  accordance  with 
the  ancient  practice,  should  visit  these  churches  every  year. 
If    they   are   out  of  repair,   they  should   be  repaired,  since, 
according   to   ancient   custom,  the  bishop  receives  the  third 
part  (of  all  the  oblations)  from  all  rural  churches.     Cf.  c.  15 
of  the  Synod  of  Orleans  (A.D.  511),  above,  and  c.  10,  C.  x.  q.  1. 

9.  If  a  lector  should  marry  an  adulteress,  or  continue  in 
matrimony  with  her,  he  must  be  excluded  from  the  clergy 
unless  he  leaves  the  adulteress.     So  with  an  ostiarius.     A 
different  translation  of  our  canon  is  given  by  Remi  Ceillier 
(I.e.  p.  679),  Eichard  (Analysis  Concil.  t.  i.  p.  690),  and  others, 
viz. :  "  If  a  lector  or  ostiarius  shall   marry,  or  continue  in 
matrimony   with    his   wife   when  she  is  an  adulteress,"  etc. 
This  translation,  in  my  opinion,  does  violence  to  the  Latin 
text.     It  runs :  "  Si  quis  lectorum  adulterae  mulieri  voluerit 
misceri,  vel  adhaerere  consortio ;  aut  relinquat  adulteram,  aut 
a   clero   habeatur   extraneus.      Similis    sententia    ostiarorum 
manebit    scholam"     (i.e.    class,    division.       Cf.    Du    Cange, 
Grlossar.  s.v.). 

10.  No  cleric  may  (like  secular  judges)  accept  presents 
for  his  work  (as  judge),  except  what,  as  freewill  offering,  is 
brought  into  the  church.     Cf.  c.  1,  C.  xv.  q.  2. 

11.  Monks    must    discharge    no    ecclesiastical    function 
outside  their  monastery,  unless  at  the  command  of  the  abbot. 
And  none   of  them  must   undertake  a  secular   employment, 
unless  for  the  use  of  the  monastery.     Cf.  c.  35,  C.  xvi  q.  1. 

12.  When  a  bishop  has  died,  after  his  funeral  a  list  of 
all  the  property  he  has  left  shall  be  made  by  the  priests  and 
deacons.     Cf.  c.  6,  C.  xii.  q.  5. 

13.  The   metropolitan   should   exhort  his    suffragans    to 
bring  with  them  to  the  Synods  (provincial  Synods),  not  only 
priests   of  the    cathedral   church,   but  also  rural  priests  (de 
dioecesanis),  and  some  laymen.1 

:  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  539  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1039  sqq.;  Gonzalez,  Col- 
lection de  Canones  de  la  Iglesa  Espanola,  Madrid  1849,  t.  ii.  p.  114  sqq.; 
Gams,  Kircheng.  von  Spanicn,  1864,  Bd.  ii.  S.  432  sqq.  On  the  presence  of 
laity  at  Synods,  cf.  the  first  volume  of  this  history,  pp.  18,  25  sqq.,  and  Aguirre, 
Concil.  Hispan.  t.  ii.  Dist.  40. 

SYNODS   AT  TAK11AOOXA,  A.D.   510;   GETiUNPA,   A.D.   517.     10f) 

Iii  the  same  ecclesiastical  province  of  Tarragona  another 
Synod  was  held  in  the  following  year,  June  8,  517,1  in  the 
suffraganal  city  of  Gerunda,  at  which  Archbishop  John  of 
Tarragona  again  presided,  and  six  other  bishops  were  present, 
evidently  those  whom  we  have  already  met  as  members  of  the 
previous  Council :  Frontinian  of  Gerunda,  Paul  of  Empuria, 
Agritius  of  Barcelona,  Nibridius  of  Egara,  Orontius  (of 
Ilerdita),  and  Einielus  (perhaps  Einidius  or  Canidius)  of 
Ausona.  They  drew  up  ten  resolutions  :2 — 

1.  The  order  of  the  Mass,  as  well  as  the  manner  of  church 
song  and  of  altar  service,  shall  in  the  whole  province  be  the 
same  as  in  the  metropolitan  church. 

2.  After  Pentecost,  in  the  following  week,  on  the  three 
days  from  Thursday  to  Saturday,  the  first  litanies  (Rogations, 
see  above,  sec.  224,  c.  27)  shall  be  celebrated  with  fasting. 
Cf.  the  following  canon. 

3.  The  second   litanies   shall   be  said  from   the    1st    of 
November  (again  for  three  days).     If,  however,  one  of  these 
three  days  is  Sunday,  the  litanies  must  be  changed  to  another 
week.     They  shall  begin  on  Thursday  and  end  on  Saturday 
evening  after  Mass  (Vesper  Mass,  see  above,  sees.  219  and 
222).     On  these  days  there  must  be  abstinence  from  flesh 
and  wine. 

4.  Catechumens  are  to  be  baptized  only  at  Easter  and 
Pentecost.     To  the  sick  alone  baptism  may  be  administered 
at   any  time.     Taken  into   the  Corpus  jur.  can.   c.   15,   De 
Consecrat.  Dist.  iv. 

5.  When  newborn  children  are  sick,  as  is  often  the  case, 
and  have  no  appetite  for  the  mother's  milk,  they  should  be 
baptized  at  once,  on  the  same  day. 

6.  If   married   men   are  ordained,  they  must,  from  the 
subdeacon  to  the  bishop,  no  longer  live  with  their  wives.     If 
they   will  not,   however,  live  (alone),  then  they  must  have 
with   them  a   brother  as  assistant,  and  as  witness  of  their 

1  On  vi.  Idas  Juntas,  therefore  not  on  the  18th  of  June,  as  Remi  Ccillier 
(I.e.  p.  680)  and  others  incorrectly  assert. 

-  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  549  sqq.;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1043  sqq.;  Gonzalez,  I.e.  p. 
117  sqq.;  Gams,  I.e.  S.  434  sqq. 


7.  If  an  unmarried  man  is  ordained,  he  must  not  have 
his  house  managed  by   a   woman,  but  by  a  manservant  or 
friend,  or  by  his  mother  or  sister,  if  he  has  such. 

8.  If  a  layman,  after  his  wife  (i.e.  after  her  death),  has 
known  any  other  woman  (free  or  a  slave),  he  must  not  after- 
wards be  received  into  the  clergy.     Cf.  c.  8,  Dist.  xxxiv. 

9.  If,  in  a  sickness,  anyone  has  received  the  benedictio 
pamitentice,1  called  the  Viaticum,  by  means  of  the  communion  ; 
and  if,  after  recovery,  he  has  not  been  required  to  do  public 
penance  in  the  church,  he  may  be  received  into  the  clergy, 
if  he  has  otherwise  had  no  irregularity  (si  prohibitis  vitiis  non 
detinetur  obnoxius).     Eemi  Ceillier  (I.e.  p.  683)  and  Eichard 
(Analysis  Concil.  t.  i.  p.  491)  translate  these  words  incorrectly, 
"  if  he  is  not  convicted  of  the  offence  charged  against  him." 

10.  Daily,  after  matins  and  vespers,  the  Lord's  Prayer 
is  to  be  said  by  the  priest  (bishop).     Cf.  c.  14,  DC  Consecrat. 
Dist.  v. 

SEC.  230.   Two  Grallican  Synods  between  514  and  517. 

About  the  same  time  two  Synods  were  held  in  Gaul,  of 
which  only  quite  scanty  information  has  reached  us.  The 
one  must  have  been  held  in  the  year  514,  probably  at  Eeims. 
Hincmar  of  Eeims  in  his  Vita  S.  Remigii,  and  after  him 
Flodoard  in  his  History  of  the  Church  of  Reims  (lib.  i.  c.  19), 
relate  that  all  the  bishops  present  had  greeted  the  holy 
archbishop,  S.  Eemigius  of  Eeims,  at  his  entrance  into  the 
assembly,  by  reverently  standing,  with  the  exception  of  an 
insolent  Arian.  This  man,  they  say,  consequently,  by  a 
miracle,  immediately  lost  his  speech,  and  received  it  again 

1  If  anyone  sick  unto  death  confessed  a  grave  sin,  he  was  not  put  into  the  grade 
of  penitence,  but  received  immediately  absolution  by  the  blessing.  Cf.  c.  13  of 
Nicaea.  This  blessing  is  called  benedictio  pcenitentise,  i.e.  that  blessing  by  which 
the  grade  of  penitence  was  conveyed  to  anyone,  and  was  always  available  if  the 
penitent  was  not  condemned  to  public  penance.  Cf.  c.  21  of  the  Synod  of 
Epaon,  sec.  231.  After  this  blessing  the  patient  received  the  communion,  and 
both  were  called  Viaticum.  If  he  recovered  he  might  be  required,  according  to 
circumstances,  to  go  through  an  additional  time  of  penance.  In  this  case  he 
could  no  longer  become  a  cleric,  as  all  who  had  done  public  penance  were 
excluded  from  clerical  rank.  Cf.  the  note  of  Aubespine  on  this  passage,  in 
Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  564. 

SYNOD  AT  KPAOX,   IX   BURGUNDY,  A.D.   517.  107 

through  Kemigius  as  soon  as  he  was  disposed  to  confess  the 
orthodox  faith.1 

The  other  Council,  Cenomanicum,  held  at  Le  Mans,  in 
France,  in  the  year  516  or  517,  confirmed  the  donations 
which  a  rich  Christian,  Harigar,  with  his  family,  had  made 
for  the  building  of  a  monastery  in  honorem  S.  Maria  et  SS. 
Martyrum,  Gervasii  et  Protasii,  in  the  diocese  of  Le  Mans.2 

SEC.  231.  Synod  at  Epaon,  in  Buryutuly,  A.D.  517. 

We  have  seen  (sec.  227)  that  King  Sigismund  of  Bur- 
gundy, after  he  had  returned  to  the  orthodox  faith,  summoned 
the  bishops  of  his  kingdom  to  a  Synod  at  Agaunum.  A 
second  Synod  he  held  a  short  time  afterwards  at  Epaon, 
evidently  with  the  purpose  of  improving  church  discipline 
in  his  kingdom,  and  to  bring  back  the  earlier  ecclesiastical 
ordinances.  It  began  probably  on  September  6,  517,  since 
for  this  day  the  bishops  were  summoned  to  Epaon,  as  we 
learn  from  the  letter  of  convocation  of  Avitus  of  Vienne  (see 
below).  The  meeting  came  to  an  end  September  15,  517, 
as  is  expressly  set  forth  in  the  subscriptions  of  the  bishops  at 
the  end  of  the  minutes. 

At  the  head  of  the  assembled  bishops  stood  Avitus. 
Besides  him  we  find,  in  the  subscriptions,  the  names  of  the 
bishops  Viventiolus  of  Lyons,  Silvester  of  Cabillonum 
(Chalons  on  the  Saone,  or,  if  we  are  to  read  Cabilicensis, 
then  Cavaillon,  in  the  Department  of  Vaucluse),3  Gemellus 
of  Vaison,  Apollinaris  of  Valence,  Valerius  of  Sistaricum 
(Sisteron),  Victurius  of  Grenoble,  Claudius  of  BesanQon, 
Gregory  of  Langres,  Pragmatius  of  Autun,  Constantius  of 
Octoduruni  (Martigni,  in  the  Canton  Vallais),  Catulinus  of 
Ebredunum  (Embrun),  Sanctus  of  Tarantasia  (Moustiers,  in 
Tarantaise,  in  Savoy),  Maximus  of  Geneva,  Bubuleus  of 
Vindonissa,4  Sseculatius  of  Dea  (S.  Die,  in  the  neighbourhood 

1  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  554.  2  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  546. 

3  Cf.  the  note  of  Vinius,  in  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  567. 

4  This  bishopric  was  subsequently  removed  to  Constance.     Bubuleus  is  the 
first  bishop  known  to  us  of  this  ancient  and  large  Roman  city,  on  the  site  of 
which  stands  the  village  Windisch,  in  the  Canton  Argau.     Cf.  my  History  of 
the  IntrodiuAion  of  Christianity  into  Smith-  Western  Germany,  S.  174  f. 


of  Valence),  Julian  of  Carpentras,  Constantius  of  Vapincum 
(Gap,  in  the  Department  of  Hautes  Alpes),  Florence  of 
Orange,  a  second  Florence  of  Tricastina  (Paul  de  trois 
Chateaux,  in  the  Department  of  Drome),  Philagrius  of 
Cavaillou,  Venantius  of  the  Ci vitas  Albensium  or  Alba 
Augusta  (now  Viviers  or  Albe,  in  the  Department  of  Herault), 
Praetextatus  of  Apt  (Department  Vaucluse),  Turicianus  of 
Severs,  and  the  priest  Peladius  of  Aventicum  (now  Avenche), 
as  representative  of  his  bishop,  Salutaris.1  Beckoning  Avitus, 
there  were  thirty-four  bishops  and  one  priest.  Where  Epaon 
or  Epaunum  was  situated,  or  under  what  name  it  may  now 
be  identified,  we  can  no  longer  decide  with  certainty ;  and  on 
this  subject  the  most  conflicting  suggestions  have  been  pro- 
posed, and  whole  dissertations  written.2  It  is  most  probable 
that  Epaona  is  to  be  sought  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Agaunum 
(S.  Maurice  in  the  Canton  Vallais),  and  that  in  the  year  563 
it  was  buried  by  a  landslip  under  Mons  Tauretunensis,  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  Tarnada.  Somewhat  further  back  in  the 
valley  lies  Evienna,  to  which  the  remaining  inhabitants  of 
Epaona  may  have  withdrawn.3 

The  Synod  of  Epaon  was  summoned  by  the  two  metro- 
politans of  Burgundy,  Avitus  of  Vienne  and  Viventiolus  of 
Lyons,  and  we  still  possess  copies  of  their  letter  of  convoca- 
tion to  the  suffragans.  That  of  Avitus  is  addressed  to  Bishop 
Quintian.  As,  however,  this  bishop  occupied  the  chair  of 
Clermont,  in  Auvergne,  and  belonged  neither  to  the  ecclesi- 
astical province  of  Vienne  nor  to  the  Burgundian  kingdom, 
Sirmond  suggested  in  his  edition  of  the  works  of  Avitus,  that 
the  direction  to  Quintian  and  the  letter  of  convocation  to  the 
suffragans  are  not  properly  connected,  but  that  the  letter  to 
Quintian  has  been  lost,  and  that  the  direction  of  that  letter 
has  been  improperly  prefixed  to  the  other  document.4 

In  this  letter  of  invitation  Avitus  says :  "  The  old  canons 
ordain  that  two  provincial  Synods  shall  be  held  annually ;  but 
it  would  be  well  if  at  least  one  should  take  place  every  two 

1  On  Aventicuni,  now  Avenche  or  Wiflisburg.  on  the  Murtensee,  in  Switzer- 
land, cf.-my  Introduction  of  Christianity,  etc.,  p.  73. 

-  Cf.  Gelpke,  Kirchengesch.  der  Schiccitz,  Bern,  1856,  Thl.  i.  S.  126  sqq. 
3  Gelpke,  I.e.  S.  130  sqq.  4  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  557. 

SYNOD  AT  EPAON,  IN  BURGUNDY,  A.D.  517.  109 

years."  The  Pope  of  the  venerable  city  (Rome)  had  reproached 
him,  that  this  institution  had  hitherto  been  so  greatly  neglected 
(in  Burgundy).  He  therefore  requested  all  his  brethren  to 
appear  in  the  parochia  of  Epaon  on  the  6th  of  September,  or 
if  anyone  were  hindered  by  sickness,  to  send  two  approved 
priests  as  representatives,  who  should  be  able  to  counsel  the 

A  similar  letter  was  despatched  by  Archbishop  Viventiolus 
of  Lyons,  in  which  he  said  that,  besides  the  bishops,  clerics 
were  also  required  to  come  to  the  Synod,  and  laymen  were 
permitted  to  come ;  and  that  perfect  impartiality  and  liberty 
of  speech  should  prevail2 

Another  document  belonging  to  the  Council  of  Epaon 
bears  the  title  Proremium,  and  is  nothing  but  the  introduction 
to  a  speech  made  by  one  of  the  bishops  or  priests  present  at 
the  request  of  the  members  of  the  Synod,  probably  at  the 
opening  solemnities  of  the  meeting.  With  many  words 
there  is  only  one  thought  in  this  speech,  that  the  speaker 
was  peculiarly  unworthy  and  unfit  to  speak  before  such  an 
assembly ;  but  that  he  did  so  because  he  had  been  ordered,  in 
order  at  least  thus  to  edify  others  by  obedience.  This  shows 
that  the  Prooemium  could  not  possibly  have  been — what  is 
suggested  in  the  Histoire  lit.  de  la  France,  I.e.  p.  92 — a  kind 
of  preface  which  the  cleric  intrusted  with  the  editing  of  the 
canons  had  put  as  introduction  to  them.  We  find,  however, 
a  kind  of  preface  in  the  five  lines  under  the  heading  Prcefatw, 
explaining  that  the  bishops  assembled,  by  the  grace  of  God, 
at  Epaon  had  drawn  up  the  following  (forty)  Titles  i3 — 

1.  If  a  metropolitan  summons  his  suffragans  to  a  Synod, 
or  for  the  consecration  of  a  brother,  no  one  shall  be  allowed 
to  excuse  himself  except  in  case  of  serious  illness. 

2.  The  apostolical   prohibition,  that  no  one  married   a 
second   time,  and   also  no  one  who   has   married   a  widow, 
should  be  ordained  priest  or  deacon,  must  be  enjoined  anew. 

3.  One  who  has  undergone  Church  penance  cannot  become 
a  cleric. 

1  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  555 ;  Hardouin,  L  ii.  p.  1045. 
-  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  556  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1046. 
a  Mausi,  t.  viii.  p.  559  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1047  sqq. 


4.  Bishops,  priests,  and  deacons  must  not  keep  hounds  or 
falcons.     A  bishop  who  transgresses  this  prohibition  must  be 
excluded  from  communion  for  three  months,  a  priest  two,  and 
a  deacon  one  month.     Cf.  sec.  222,  c.  55. 

5.  No   priest   must   undertake    Church    services  at    the 
oratories   or    basilicas   of    another    diocese,    unless    his    own 
bishop  has  resigned  him   to  the  other  bishop.     If  a  bishop 
allows    one    of    his    clergy  to   officiate    illicite  in  a  strange 
diocese,  he  is  responsible  for  it. 

6.  If  a  priest  or  deacon  travelling  is  without  a  letter  from 
his  bishop,  no  one  shall  give  him  communion.     See  above,  sec. 
222,  c.  52. 

7.  If  a  priest  in  a  parish  sells  any  of  the  Church  property, 
this  shall  be  invalid,  and  the  purchaser  must  restore  it. 

8.  The  priest  who  administers  a  diocese   (rural  church, 
see  above,  sec.  222,  c.  54),  must  have  what  he  buys  put  down 
in  the  name  of  the  Church,  or  resign  the  administration  of 
the  Church.     If  an  abbot  sells  anything  without  the  previous 
knowledge  of  the  bishop,  it  may  be  demanded  back  by  the 
bishop.     Slaves  who  belong  to  the  monks  must  not  be  set 
free   by   the   abbot,  for  it  is  unreasonable   that,  whilst   the 
monks  daily  cultivate  the  field,  their  servants  should  go  at 
liberty  idle.     See  above,  sec.  222,  c.  56. 

9.  An  abbot  must  not  have  two  monasteries  under  him. 
See  sec.  222,  c.  57. 

10.  New   cells   (small   monasteries)  or   congregations  of 
monks  must  not  be  set  up  without  knowledge  of  the  bishop. 
See  above,  sec.  222,  c.  58. 

11.  Without  permission  of  the  bishop  no  cleric  must  begin 
a  process  in  a  secular  court.     If,  however,  he  is  himself  sued, 
he  may  present  himself  before  the  secular  tribunal.     Cf.  c.  3  2 
of  Agde,  sec.  32. 

12.  No  bishop  may  sell  any  Church   property  without 
previous  knowledge  of  his  metropolitan.       Useful  exchange, 
however,  is  allowed. 

1 3.  If  a  cleric  is  proved  to  have  given  false  testimony,  he 
is  to  be  treated  as  a  capital  offender.     See  above,  sec.   222, 
c.  50. 

14.  If  a  cleric  has  received  anything  from  his  Church,  he 

SYNOD  AT  EPAON,  IN   BURGUNDY,  A.D.   517.  Ill 

must  restore  it,  if  he  is  consecrated  bishop  in  another  diocese. 
What,  however,  he  has  bought  by  deed  with  his  property,  he 
may  retain. 

15.  If  a  higher  cleric  has  taken  part  in  a  banquet  of  a 
heretical  cleric,  he  must  be  excluded  from  the  Church  for  a 
year.     Younger   clerics   who   do  the  same   shall   be  beaten. 
But    at    the    banquets   of   Jews,   even  a  layman    must    not 
partake,  and  anyone  who  has  done  so  once,  may  not  again 
eat  with  a  cleric. 

16.  If  sick  heretics  are  willing   to  be  converted,  their 
priests  may  grant  them  the  chrism.     If,  however,  the  penitent 
recover,  he  must  receive  it  from  the  bishop. 

17.  If  a   bishop   has  devised    by  will    anything    which 
belongs  to  the  Church,  this  is  invalid,  unless  he  has  given  in 
return  as  much  of  his  private  property.     Cf.  above,  sec.  222, 
c.  51. 

18.  If  a   cleric   has   in    possession,    however    long,  any 
Church  property,  even  with  the  will  of  the  king,  it  cannot 
by  any  length  of  time  become  his  property  if  it  is  demon- 
strably  the  Church's.     Cf.  above,  c.  59  of  Agde,  sec.  222. 

19.  If  an  abbot  has  committed  an  offence,  and  will  not 
admit  the  successor  appointed  by  the  bishop,  the  matter  must 
come  before  the  metropolitan. 

20.  It  is  forbidden  to  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons,  and 
to  all  clerics  generally,  to  pay  visits  to  women  in  the  midday 
and  evening  hours.     If,  however,  such  a  visit  is  necessary,  a 
priest  or  cleric  must  be  taken  as  witness. 

21.  The    dedication    of    deaconesses    shall    be    given  up 
throughout  the  whole  kingdom.     Only  the  lenedictio  p&nitentiw 
may  be  given  to  them,  if  they  go  back  (i.e.  lay  aside  the 
votum  castitatis).     On  the  expression  lenedictio  pcenitenticc,  see 
above,  sec.  229,  c.  9. 

22.  If  a  bishop,  priest,  or  deacon  has  committed  a  capital 
offence,  he  must  be  deposed  and   confined  in  a  monastery, 
where,  all  his  life,  he  receives  only  lay  communion.     In  the 
text  is  here  lacking  the  word  laica  to  qualify  communio,  whilst 
it  stands   correctly   in   the  pretended   50th  canon  of  Agde. 
See  sec.  222. 

23.  Anyone  who  has    laid  aside  the  vow  of    penitence, 


and  has  returned  to  secular  business,  must  not  at  all  be 
admitted  to  communion  until  he  has  returned  again  to  his 
vow.  Cf.  c.  11  of  the  first  Synod  of  Orleans,  sec.  224. 

24.  Laymen  may  bring  criminal  accusations  against  clerics 
of  every  rank,  if  they  speak  the  truth.     Cf.  c.  6  of  the  first 
Synod  of  Orleans,  sec.  224. 

25.  Holy  relics  must  not  be  placed  in  private  oratories, 
if  there  are  no  clerics  of  a  parish  in  the  neighbourhood  to 
sing  psalms  frequently  over  the  sacred  bones.     Special  clerics 
(for  such  oratories)  must   not,  however,  be  appointed  until 
sufficient  has  been  provided  for  their  food  and  clothing. 

26.  Altars  which  are  not  of  stone  are  not  to  be  dedi- 
cated  with    the   anointing   of    chrism. — Keceived   with   the 
following  canon  into  the  Corpus  jur.  can.  as  31  ;  De  Comecrat. 
Dist.  i. 

27.  The  ordering  of  divine  service  by  the  metropolitan 
shall  be  observed  in  his  entire  province.      Cf.  c.   1   of  the 
Synod  of  Gerunda,  sec.  229. 

28.  If  a  bishop  dies  before  he  has  absolved  one  who  has 
been  condemned  (excommunicated)  by  him,  his  successor  shall 
do  so. — The  correct  explanation  of  this  canon  results  from 
what  has  been  said  in  vol.  i.  of  this  history,  p.  159  and  470. 

29.  If  anyone  has  fallen  from  the  Church  into  a  heresy 
since  the  ancient  stringency  has  been  modified,  he  may  be 
received  back   on  the  following   conditions : — He    must   do 
penance  for  two  years,  and  fast  every  third  day  during  this 
time ;  he  must  often  frequent  the  church,  stand  in  the  place 
of    penitents,    and    leave    divine     service    along    with    the 
catechumens.     Cf.  above  the  pretended  c.  60  of  Agde,  sec. 

30.  Incestuous  unions  are  in  no  wise  to    be   pardoned 
before  they  are  again  sundered.     Besides  those  crimes  which 
one  does  not  dare  to  mention,  there  are  others   incestuous, 
such  as  the  following  unions :  If    anyone  connects   himself 
with  his  brother's  widow,  or  with  his  own  dead  wife's  sister, 
or  with   his   stepmother,   or   with  his  consdbrina  or  sobrina 
(child  or  grandchild  of  a  brother  or  sister).     Such  marriages 
are  from  henceforth  forbidden;  but  those  already  concluded 
we   do  not  dissolve.     Further,  if   anyone  connects    himself 

SYNOD  AT  EPAON,  IN  BURGUNDY,  A.D.  517.  113 

with  the  widow  of  his  uncle  (on  the  mother  or  father's  side), 
or  with  his  stepdaughter,  in  such  cases  those  who  shall  effect 
such  a  union  must  be  again  dissolved,  and  have  liberty  to 
enter  upon  a  better  marriage.  Of.  c.  61  of  Agde. 

31.  In  regard  to  the  penance  of  murderers  who  have 
escaped  secular  judgment,  the  canons  of  Ancyra  (21  and  23) 
are  valid.  Of.  vol.  i.  p.  220  f. 

3  2.  If  the  widow  of  a  priest  or  deacon  marries  again,  she 
and  her  husband  will  be  excluded  from  communion  until  they 
separate.  Cf.  c.  13  of  the  first  Synod  of  Orleans,  sec.  224. 

33.  The  churches  of  heretics  we  so  greatly  abhor,  that  we 
consider  them  not  even  capable  of  being  cleansed,  and  they 
must  never  be  turned  to  sacred  uses.     Only  where  they  have 
been  previously  Catholic  churches,  and  have  been  taken  from 
us    by    violence,    will    we    reconcile   them. — This  ordinance 
stands  in  opposition  to  the  last  part  of  c.  10  of  the  first 
Synod  of  Orleans,  sec.  224. 

34.  If    anyone  has  killed  his  slave  without  permission 
of  the  judge,  he  must  be  excommunicated  for  two  years. 

35.  Laymen  of  high   descent  must  request   benediction 
from  the  bishop  at  Easter  and  Christmas,  wherever  they  may 
be  (that  is  even  in  strange  dioceses). 

36.  No  sinner,  if  he  repents  and  amends,  is  to  be  denied 
the  hope  of  being  received  back.     If  he  is  sick  the  time  of 
penitence  may  be  shortened.     If  he  recovers  after  reception 
of   the  Viaticum,  he   must  complete  his  appointed   time   of 
penitence.     Cf.  c.  13  of  Mcaea,  vol.  i.  p.  419. 

37.  No    layman    may    become    a    cleric    nisi    religione 
prcemissa.     Eeligio  is  not  identical  here  with  vita  monastica, 
but  with  the  related  idea  conversio,  ie.  professio  castitis.     See 
above,  sec.  222,  c.  16,  note. 

38.  Only  women  of  proved  character  and   of  advanced 
age  may  enter  into  women's  convents  in  order  to  render  any 
kind  of  services  there.     Priests  who  go  into  such  convents,  in 
order  to  say  Mass,  must  leave  again  directly  after  completing 
divine  service.     Otherwise  no  cleric  or  young  monk  may  visit 
a  woman  in  a  convent,  unless  he  is  her  father  or  her  brother. 

39.  If  a  slave,  who  has  a  serious  charge  against  him,  flees 
into  the  church,  he  shall  be  preserved  only  against  bodily 

iv.  8 


punishment  (death,  mutilation,  and  the  like),  and  no  oath  shall 
be  demanded  from  his  master  that  he  has  not  condemned  him 
to  cutting  hair  or  any  other  work. 

40.  The  bishops  who  have  subscribed  these  statutes,  and 
their  successors,  must  know  that  they  charge  themselves  with 
great  responsibility  before  God  and  their  brethren  if  they  do 
not  carefully  follow  them. 

Two  further  canons,  ascribed  to  the  Synod  of  Epaon,  are 
found  in  Gratian,  c.  11,  C.  xxvi.  q.  6,  and  Egbert  of  York.1 
The  former  says :  If  an  excommunicated  man,  who  has 
already  confessed  his  offence,  and  has  a  good  witness,  suddenly 
dies,  his  relations  (parentes)  must  bring  the  oblation  to  the 
altar  for  him,  and  give  a  contribution  for  the  redemption  of 
prisoners.  The  other  is  identical  with  c.  58  of  Laodicea.  See 
vol.  ii.  p.  322. 

SEC.   232.  Synod  at  Lyons,  A.D.  517. 

Sometime  after  the  close  of  the  Synod  of  Epaon,  eleven 
of  the  bishops  who  had  been  present  there  celebrated  a  Synod 
at  Lyons,  under  the  presidency  of  the  Archbishop  Viventiolus. 
Before  this,  at  Epaon,  it  had  been  thought  necessary  to  renew 
the  ecclesiastical  statutes  with  respect  to  incestuous  mafriages. 
The  matter  was  practical,  for  Stephen,  the  chief  fiscal  in  the 
Burgundian  kingdom,  had,  after  the  death  of  his  wife,  married 
her  sister  Palladia.  It  was  specially  against  him  that  the 
30th  canon  of  Epaon  had  been  drawn  up.  The  same 
matter  came  up  for  discussion  again  at  Lyons.  An  ancient 
biography  of  S.  Apollinaris  of  Valence,  who  had  been  at  the 
Council  of  Epaon,  and  was  a  full  brother  of  Avitus,  relates 
that  Stephen  was  expelled  from  Church  communion  by  a 
Synod  in  the  presence  of  Avitus  and  Apollinaris,  on  account 
of  which  the  King  was  thrown  into  a  violent  passion.  The 
bishops,  however,  had  hereupon  betaken  themselves  to  the 
neighbourhood  of  Lyons,  as  into  exile.2  Here  in  Lyons 
they  celebrated  the  Synod  of  which  we  have  now  to  speak. 
The  Council,  however,  which  excommunicated  Stephen  in  the 
presence  of  Avitus  and  his  brother,  is  certainly  none  other 

1  Both  in  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  565.  2  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  573. 

SYNOD  AT  LYONS,  A.D.   517.  115 

than  that  of  Epaon.1  It  is  impossible  here  to  think  of  our 
Synod  at  Lyons,  for  neither  Avitus  nor  Apollinaris  was 
present  at  this.  Besides,  we  can  see  from  the  six  canons  of 
the  Synod  of  Lyons,  that  the  relations  between  King 
Sigismund  and  his  bishops  had  become  somewhat  better,  but 
were  still  uncertain.  The  canons  run  as  follows : — 

1.  In  the  name  of  the  Trinity,  assembled  for  the  second 
time  on  account  of  the  incest  of  Stephen,  we  decided  that  the 
judgment  unanimously  pronounced  by  us  at  an  earlier  period 
against   him,  and   her   who   was   improperly   united  to  him, 
should  remain  in  undiminished  force.    The  same  shall  be  done 
to  other  persons  who  may  fall  into  the  same  transgression. 

2.  If  anyone  of  us  must,  for  this  reason,  suffer  affliction 
from  the  (secular)  power,  we  all  suffer  in  common  with  him. 
And  if  any  suffers  losses,  the  participation  of  his  brethren  will 
lighten  them. 

3.  If  the  King  (enraged  with  the  bishops  because  of  this 
matter)  of  his  own  accord  separates  himself  from  the  Church 
and  from  communion  with  the  bishops,  we   give    him    the 
opportunity  of  returning  again  into  the  bosom  of  his  Mother. 
Let  all  the  bishops  speedily  withdraw  into  the  monasteries, 
until  the  King,  moved  by  the  prayers  of  the  saints,  restores 
peace  again.     And  no  bishop  must  leave  his  monastery  until 
the   King  has   restored   peace    to    all    the    bishops   without 

4.  No  bishop  must  intrude  into  the  diocese  of  another,  or 
wrest  parishes  away  from  him.     And  even  when  a  bishop  is 
travelling,  another  must  not  offer  the  sacrifice  or  take  ordina- 
tions in  his  place. 

5.  As  long  as  a  bishop  lives,  no  one  shall  come  forward 
as  his   successor.      If  this   should  happen,  and  anyone    be 
consecrated   as   successor,  he   shall   suffer  perpetual    excom- 
munication, and  also,  the  bishops  who  have  consecrated  him. 

6.  Following  the  view  of  the  King,  we  have  allowed  this 
modification,  that  Stephen,  together  with  Palladia,  may  remain 
in  the  church  up  to  the  prayer  of  the  people,  which  is  offered 
after  the  Gospel. 

1  Already  suggested  by  Mansi,  I.e.    The  Acts  of  Epaon,  as  they  have  come 
to  us,  say  nothing  on  the  subject. 


These  canons  were  subscribed  by  Archbishop  Viventiolus 
of  Lyons,  and  Bishops  Julian,  Silvester,  Apollinaris,  Victurius, 
Claudius,  Gregory,  Maximus,  Seculatius,  Florence,  and 
Philagrius.1  Some  further  canons  were  ascribed  to  our  Synod 
by  Burchard  of  Worms  and  Ivo,  which  Mansi  (I.e.  p.  571  sq.) 
has  collected.  Pagi  remarked  correctly  (ad.  ann.  517,  n.  10) 
that  this  Synod  is  improperly  called  Lugdunensis  I.,  and  that 
it  should  more  properly  be  called  the  second  of  Lyons,  since 
an  earlier  one  of  A.D.  516  is  known  to  us.  Of.  sec.  228. 

SEC.  233. — Synods  at  Constantinople,  Jerusalem,  Tyre,  Syria, 
Rome,  and  Epirus,  in  connection  with  the  Monophysites, 
A.D.  518-520. 

We  have  frequently  met  the  Byzantine  Emperor  Aiias- 
tasius  as  an  enemy  of  the  Chalcedonian  doctrine,  who 
endeavoured  by  violence  to  carry  through  the  unhappy  half- 
and-half  Henoticon  of  the  Emperor  Zeno,  and  in  his  later  years 
came  nearer  and  nearer  to  complete  Monophysitism.  Two 
patriarchs,  Euphemius  and  his  successor  Macedonius  of  Con- 
stantinople, were  deposed  by  him  in  the  year  496  and  511 2 
because  they  would  not  enter  into  his  plans.  But  neither 
cunning  nor  violence  succeeded  in  leading  astray  even  the 
inmates  of  the  residence,  and  as  soon  as  the  Emperor  died, 
July  9,  518,  and  the  Praefector  Praetorio  Justin,  a  man  of  low 
origin,  but  full  of  talent  and  insight,  and  devoted  to  orthodoxy, 
had  been  elected  as  his  successor,  the  people  streamed  in 
masses  into  the  cathedral  and  demanded  that  the  Eutychians 
and  their  supporters  (called  by  the  people  Manichaeans), 
particularly  Severus  of  Antioch,  should  be  excommunicated ; 
that  the  patriarch  should  publicly  declare  his  adhesion  to  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon ;  and  that  the  names  of  Pope  Leo  and  of 
the  two  patriarchs,  Euphemius  and  Macedonius,  should  be 
restored  to  the  diptychs,  from  which  Anastasius  had  caused 
them  to  be  removed. 

The  Patriarch  John  the  Cappadocian,  who  had  recently 

1  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  569  sq.  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1053  sq.     The  sees  of  these 
bishops  are  given  above. 

2  See  above,  sees.  208,  216,  225. 

.  SYNODS  AT  CONSTANTINOPLE,   ETC.,   A.D.   518-520.  117 

succeeded  to  the  heretical  Timothy,  although  inwardly  orthodox, 
in  order  to  pacify  the  Emperor  Anastasius,  had  rejected  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon,  but  now  found  it  advisable,  on  two 
days,  at  the  repeated  urgent  demand  of  the  people,  to  declare 
that  he  recognised  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  and  would 
immediately  appoint  a  solemnity  in  its  honour  (see  below) ; 
that  he  anathematised  Severus,  and  so  forth.  Moreover,  on 
the  second  day  he  caused  the  names  of  Leo,  of  Euphemius, 
and  Macedonius,  as  well  as  the  titles  of  the  first  four 
(Ecumenical  Synods,  to  be  read  aloud  from  the  diptych,  at 
the  solemn  Mass.1  The  people  had  also  demanded  the  holding 
of  a  Synod,  that  the  results  now  demanded  from  John  might 
be  confirmed  in  a  canonical  manner ;  and  the  patriarch  sum- 
moned the  bishops  who  were  then  present  in  Constantinople 
and  in  the  neighbourhood,  to  the  number  of  forty-three  or 
forty-four,  to  a  <rvvo8o<;  ev^fiovcra  on  July  20,  518.  He  does 
not  himself  appear  to  have  been  present ;  for  not  only  did  the 
Synod  send  its  decrees  to  him  in  writing,2  but  in  this  synodal 
letter  it  is  expressly  said  that  the  patriarch's  plenipotentiary 
had  laid  the  whole  matter  before  the  bishops  for  their  con- 
sideration and  decision.  This  synodal  letter  itself,  as  well  as 
all  the  other  documents  belonging  to  it,  are  found  in  the  Acts 
of  a  later  Constantinopolitan  Synod  under  the  Patriarch 
Mennas,  A,D.  536,  Actio  v.3 

Immediately  after  the  opening  of  our  Synod,  the  monks 
of  all  the  monasteries  of  Constantinople  presented  a  petition, 
and  prayed  that  it  might  be  read  aloud,  and  that  the  points 
therein  brought  forward  might  be  confirmed.4  The  Synod 
consented,  found  the  petitions  of  the  monks  (and  of  the  people) 
right  and  reasonable,  and  decreed  that  they  should  be  com- 

1  A  very  complete  account  of  the  stormy  proceedings  on  these  two  days,  by 
an  unknown  author,  is  given  under  the  Acts  of  the  Constantinopolitan  Synod  of 
A.D.  536,  in  Mansi,  t.  viii.  pp.  1057-1065,  and  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1334  sqq.     Cf. 
Baronius,  ad  ann.  518,.  n.  6  sqq.,  and  Walch,  Ketzerhist.  Bd.  vii.  S.  47  sqq. 

2  They  called  him  the  oecumenical  patriarch,  a  title  very  customary  at  that 
time,  and  frequently  occurring  in  the  Acts  of  this  and  the  following  Synod.    Cf. 
Baronius,  ad  ann.  518,  n.  14. 

3  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  1041  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1322  sq. 

4  This  petition  is  in  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  1049  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  ii.  1327  sqq.    As 
the  Synod  has  embodied  all  the  points  of  this  document  in  its  synodal  letter,  it 
is  not  necessary  to  give  its  contents  more  particularly. 


municated  by  the  patriarch  to  the  Emperor  and  the  Empress 
(Euphemia).  The  petitions  were  as  follows: — 1.  That  the 
names  of  the  patriarchs  who  had  died  in  exile,  Euphemius 
and  Macedonius,  should  be  restored  to  the  catalogue  of  the 
bishops  of  Constantinople,  and  to  the  diptychs,  and  that 
everything  which  had  been  done  against  them  should  be 
annulled.  2.  That  all  those  who  had  been  condemned  and 
banished  on  account  of  their  adhesion  to  Euphemius  and 
Macedonius  should  be  restored.  3.  That  the  Synods  of 
Nicaea,  Constantinople,  Ephesus,  and  Chalcedon  should  be 
inscribed  in  the  diptychs.  (In  the  old  Latin  translation  of 
these  documents  the  Synods  of  Ephesus  and  Chalcedon  are 
omitted.)  4.  That  the  name  of  Pope  Leo  should  also  be  put 
on  the  diptychs  with  the  same  honour  as  that  of  S.  Cyril, 
which  already  stands  on  the  diptychs.  5.  Finally,  the  Synod 
declared  that  in  accordance  with  the  demand  of  the  monks 
and  the  people,  anathema  and  deposition  should  be  pronounced 
against  Severus  of  Antioch,  who  had  repeatedly  reviled  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon,  and  against  whom  a  special  letter  of 
complaint  from  the  clergy  of  Antioch  had  been  presented  to 
this  Synod.1 — All  this  the  Synod  declared  in  their  letter  to  the 
Patriarch  John  of  Constantinople,  which  was  subscribed  by  all 
present,  with  Archbishop  Theophilus  of  Heraclea  at  their  head.2 
Copies  of  these  synodal  decrees  were  sent  by  the  Patriarch 
John  also  to  other  bishops  of  distinction,  requesting  their 
concurrence  and  acceptance.  Two  such  letters  from  him  are 
still  extant,  addressed  to  the  Patriarch  John  of  Jerusalem  and 
to  Archbishop  Epiphanius  of  Tyre.3  Both  held  Synods  in  the 
the  same  year,  that  at  Jerusalem  on  the  6th  of  August  (with 
thirty- three  bishops),  and  that  at  Tyre  on  the  16th  of  Sep- 
tember, 518,4  who,  in  their  still  extant  synodal  letter  to  John 
of  Constantinople  and  the  bishops  assembled  around  him, 
declare  their  adherence  to  their  decrees  in  the  most  decisive 
manner.  The  Synod  of  Tyre,  at  the  same  time,  gave  here  a 

1  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  1037  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1317  sqq. 

2  Mansi,  t.  viii.  pp.  1041-1049  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  pp.  1322-1327. 

3  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  1065  sqq.  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1342. 

4  The  synodal  letter  of  Tyre  is  subscribed  by  only  five  bishops  ;  but  it  is  not 
complete,  as  is  shown  by  the  words  at  the  close,  *«i  ai  \nxot. 

SYNODS  AT   CONSTANTINOPLE,  ETC.,  A.D.  518-520.  119 

long  description  of  the  various  crimes  of  Severus  of  Antioch 
and  his  associate,  the  Tyrian  cleric,  John  Mandrites,  and 
requested  that  the  name  of  the  departed  Flavian  of  Antioch 
should  be  placed  on  the  diptychs  along  with  that  of  Pope 
Leo.1  A  further  document  appended  to  the  synodal  letter  of 
Tyre  gives  an  account  of  the  proceedings  which  took  place  in 
the  principal  church  there,  September  16,  518,2  after  the 
reading  of  the  letters  which  had  come  from  Constantinople, 
and  before  the  opening  of  the  Tyrian  Synod.  Here  also  the 
people  demanded,  with  endless  acclamations,  that  Archbishop 
Epiphanius  of  Tyre  (who  is  here  also  called  patriarch)  and 
his  suffragans,  would  anathematise  the  Monophysite  heresy 
and  its  adherents,  particularly  Severus  of  Antioch  and  John 

A  similar  third  Synod  was  held  by  the  bishops  of  Syria 
Secunda  under  the  presidency  of  Bishop  Cyrus  of  Mariamna. 
In  their  synodal  letter  to  the  "  oecumenical  patriarch,"  John 
of  Constantinople,  they  express  their  joy  that  now  an  ortho- 
dox Emperor  is  reigning,  and  that  an  end  is  coming  to  the 
time  which  has  been  so  sad.  They  further  declare  their 
unconditional  adhesion  to  the  decrees  of  Constantinople,  and 
inform  them  that  they  have  pronounced  anathema  and  deposi- 
tion, not  only  upon  Severus  of  Antioch,  but  upon  his  associate 
Bishop  Peter  of  Apamea.  In  connection  with  the  documents 
relating  to  the  many  crimes  of  Peter,  they  finally  request  of  the 
patriarch  of  Constantinople  and  his  Synod  a  confirmation  of  their 
sentence  and  the  communication  of  the  matter  to  the  Emperor.4 

1  These  two  synodal  letters  are  found  among  the  Acts  of  the  Synod  of  536,  in 
Mansi,  I.e.  p.  1068  sqq.  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1432  sqq.  ;  cf.  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  578  ; 
and  Walch,  Ketzerhist.  Bd.  vii.  S.  67  sqq. 

2  It  is  the  year  643,  according  to  the  Tyrian  reckoning,  on  which,  cf.  Ideler, 
Handbuch  der  Chronol.  Bd.  vii.  S.  471  ff. ;  and  Lehrbuch  der  Chronol.  S.  197. 
In  the  marginal  note  in  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  1084,  there  is  a  misprint  which  destroys 
the  meaning,  and  we  must  read  518  instead-  of  543  of  the  Dionysian  era. 

3  Mansi,  t.  viii.  pp.  1082-1092;   Hardouin,   t.    ii.    pp.    1354-1362.      The 
'Pttftai'xti  here  named,  over  whom  anathema  was  also  demanded,  is  certainly  not 
the  Roman  Pope,  since  he,  a  few  lines  lower,  is  introduced  very  respectfully  as 
o  'Pupns  •recTfiapxtif. 

4  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  1093  sqq.  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1362  sqq.     The  documents 
appended  on  Peter  of  Apamea  are  also  in  Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  1097-1136    Hardouiui 
I.e.  pp.  1366-1394. 


There  is  no  doubt  that  about  the  same  time,  and  in  many 
other  cities  of  the  Byzantine  Empire,  similar  Synods  took 
place  for  the  rejection  of  the  Monophysite  heresy  and  its 
adherents,  whilst  the  Emperor  Justin,  after  confirming  the 
decrees  of  Constantinople,  expressly  demanded  this.  The 
Roman  deacon  Rusticus,  a  contemporary,  also  relates  that, 
under  the  Emperor  Justin,  about  2500  Sacerdotes  (bishops) 
had  in  writing  declared  their  recognition  of  the  Council  of 

John  of  Constantinople  and  the  bishops  assembled  around 
him  determined  to  apply  to  Pope  Hormisdas,  in  order  to 
bring  back  Church  communion,  which  for  a  long  time  (since 
484)  had  been  interrupted  on  account  of  the  Henoticon. 
The  first  steps  to  this  end  they  had  already  taken  by  the 
solemn  recognition  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  and  by  the 
reception  of  Leo  I.  into  the  diptychs  of  their  Church.  The 
Patriarch  John  wrote  now  on  this  subject  to  the  Pope,  com- 
municated to  him  the  decrees  of  his  Synod,  assured  him  that 
his  (Hormisdas')  name  had  already  been  entered  on  the 
diptychs,  and  concluded  with  the  wish  that  the  Pope,  in  the 
full  exercise  of  his  holiness,  would  send  some  peaceful  legates 
to  Constantinople,  which  should  bring  the  work  of  unity  to 

In  accordance  with  the  wish  of  the  Synod  of  Constan- 
tinople, the  Emperor  Justin  added  to  the  letter  of  the 
patriarch  one  of  his  own  to  accompany  it,  dated  September  1, 
518,  in  order  to  support  the  request  that  the  Pope  would 
send  legates  to  Constantinople  in  the  interest  of  union.  For 
the  better  advancement  of  the  matter,  the  Emperor  sent  one 
of  his  highest  officials  of  State,  Count  Gratus,  with  these 
letters  to  Rome.3  The  principal  business  committed  to  him 
we  learn  from  a  letter  which  the  nephew  of  the  Emperor, 
afterwards  the  famous  Justinian,  addressed  to  Pope  Hormisdas, 
and  gave  to  Count  Gratus  to  take  with  him.  In  this  letter 
he  says :  "  As  soon  as  the  Emperor  by  the  will  of  God  (Dei 

1  In  Baronius,  ad  ann.  518,  n.  37,  and  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  578  sq.     At  that  time 
there  were  numbered  in  Christendom  more  than  six  thousand  bishops. 
-  Epistola  Joannis  ad  Hormisd.,  in  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  436  sq. 
8  Epistola  Justini  ad  Hormisd.,  in  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  435. 

SYNODS  AT  CONSTANTINOPLE,  ETC.,  A.D.    518-520.  121 

juditio)  had  received  the  princely  fillet  (infulas  prindpales),  he 
had  given  the  bishops  to  know  that  the  peace  of  the  Church 
must  be  restored,  and  this  had  already  in  a  great  degree  been 
accomplished.  But  in  regard  to  Acacius,  they  must  hear  the 
Pope,  and  therefore  the  Emperor  had  sent  Count  Grains  to  Rome 
with  the  imperial  letter.  Hormisdas  therefore  should,  as  soon 
as  possible,  either  come  personally  to  Constantinople,  or  send 
suitable  plenipotentiaries." l 

As  is  well  known,  Acacius,  patriarch  of  Constantinople, 
was  the  author  of  the  Henoticon,  and  had  been  anathematised 
by  Rome  (above,  sec.  213).  On  his  account  the  separation 
between  the  Churches  of  Rome  and  Constantinople  had  taken 
place.  The  Patriarch  John  and  his  Synod  therefore  were 
forced  to  assume  that  the  Pope  would  not  easily  be  induced 
to  enter  into  union  with  the  Byzantines,  unless  they  had  first 
struck  out  from  the  diptychs  the  name  of  the  long-departed 
Acacius,  and  had  recognised  the  anathema  pronounced  upon 
him.  But  on  this  point  they  would  come  to  no  decision,  since 
under  the  previous  Emperor  the  request  of  the  Pope  in  this 
matter  had  been  refused,  and  his  legates  driven  from  Constan- 
tinople. And  the  new  Synod  of  Constantinople  had  not 
said  a  single  syllable  about  Acacius,  and  had  anathematised 
only  Severus  of  Antioch,  whose  case  was  certainly  more  grave. 
With  the  matter  of  Acacius,  Gratus  had  to  deal  personally  in 
Rome,  and,  if  possible,  to  find  a  middle  way. 

As  we  learn  from  a  note  appended  to  the  letter  of  John 
to  the  Pope,  Gratus  arrived  in  Rome,  December  20,  518. 
Baronius  (ad  ann.  518,  n.  82  and  83)  mentions  that  Hormis- 
das had  now  held  a  Synod  in  Rome,  to  take  counsel  on  this 
subject ;  but  he  does  not  mention  the  source  from  which  he 
draws,  and  in  the  somewhat  numerous  letters  of  Hormisdas 
which  belong  to  this  time  there  is  no  trace  of  it.  We  learn, 
however,  from  them  that  the  Pope  sent  (A.D.  519)  the  bishops 
John  and  Germanus,  with  the  priest  Blandus  and  the  deacons 
Dioscurus  and  Felix,  as  legates  to  Greece,  and  gave  them  full 
instructions  as  to  their  line  of  conduct.2  In  particular,  they 
were  to  receive  no  bishop  into  Church  communion  unless  he 

1  JSpistola  Justiniani  ad  Homnisd.,  in  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  438. 

2  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  441  sq. 


had  first  subscribed  the  Libellus  (a  confession  of  faith)  given 
to  them  from  Eome,  in  which  the  anathema  over  Acacius  and 
his  fellows  was  contained.1  Among  these  followers  the 
Patriarchs  Euphemius  and  Macedonius  were  intended,  who 
had  led  on  the  separation  from  Eome,  but  were  of  the 
Chalcedonian  party,  and  on  account  of  their  orthodoxy,  as  we 
know,  had  been  forced  to  suffer  persecution  from  the  Emperor 
Anastasius.  The  Synod  of  Constantinople  referred  to  had 
restored  their  names  to  the  diptychs,  and  now  the  Pope 
demanded  that  they  should  be  anathematised  along  with 
Acacius  (as  Schismatics),  and  that  the  legates  were  in  no  way 
to  relinquish  this  demand.  At  the  same  time,  Hormisdas 
addressed  a  series  of  letters  to  the  Emperor,  to  the  Empress, 
to  Justinian,  to  the  Patriarch  John,  to  the  clergy  of  Con- 
stantinople, and  to  several  distinguished  statesmen  and  court 
ladies,2  in  order  to  commend  his  legates  to  them,  and  to 
ask  for  their  co-operation  in  order  to  the  restoration  of 
Church  union.  In  most  of  them  he  particularly  urges  that 
the  anathema  upon  Acacius  is  a  demand  of  importance,  since 
it  is  impossible,  on  the  one  side,  to  recognise  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon,  and,  on  the  other  side,  to  retain  in  the  Church 
diptychs  the  name  of  its  opponent,  who  had  sought  to  nullify 
it,  and  solemnly  to  call  out  his  name  at  divine  service. 

The  papal  legates  found  generally  a  very  respectful 
reception,  and  wherever  they  came,  found  the  bishops  willing 
to  subscribe  the  Libellus.  On  this  point  we  still  possess  the 
reports  of  the  legates  themselves,3  as  well  as  a  relation  of 
Bishop  Andrew  of  Prsevilatana  (in  Illyria),  which  also  refers 
to  a  Conciliabulum,  in  which  the  bishops  of  New  Epirus 
(Elyris  Grceca,  see  above,  sec.  228)  were  ready  to  comply 
with  the  demand  of  the  Pope  only  in  appearance,  whilst  their 
archbishop  (of  Dyrrhachium)  could  not  at  all  be  brought  to 
the  right  way.  The  legates,  however,  succeeded  in  their  mission 
in  Constantinople.  The  Patriarch  John  subscribed,  in  March 

1  This  Libellus  is  the  so-called  Formula  Hormisdse,  (sec.  228),  and  was  sub- 
scribed by  the  Patriarch  John  of  Constantinople  (see  below  in  this  section). 

2  Mansi,  t.  viii.  pp.  435-449.     To  certain  persons,  as  the  Emperor  and  Jus- 
tinian, two  among  these  letters  are  directed  ;  to  the  patriarch,  three.     The  former 
were  probably  sent  with  the  legates,  the  others  before  or  afterwards. 

3  Mansi,  t.  viii.  pp.  449,  450,  454. . 


519,  the  papal  Libellus?  and  thus  pronounced  anathema,  not 
only  upon  Eutyches,  Dioscurus,  and  others,  but  also  over 
Acacius  and  his  followers  (without  naming  them  in  particu- 
lar), and  in  the  presence  of  the  legates  the  names  of  Acacius, 
Eupheinius,  and  Macedonius,  as  well  as  those  of  the  Emperor 
Zeuo  and  Anastasius,  were  struck  out  of  the  diptychs.2 

Thus  was  the  union  with  Constantinople  again  established ; 
and  the  Emperor  now  recommended  the  other  bishops  of  his 
kingdom  to  subscribe  the  papal  Libellus,  and  acquainted  the 
Pope  with  the  same  by  a  letter,  dated  April  22,  519.3 
Additional  letters  were  sent  to  Koine  by  the  Patriarch  John, 
the  Emperor's  nephew  Justinian,  and  many  other  persons,  to 
acquaint  them  with  what  had  been  done  at  Constantinople, 
and  to  express  their  joy  at  the  issue.4  Hormisdas,  however, 
requested  the  Emperor,  as  well  as  the  Patriarch  John,  the 
Prince  Justinian,  and  others,  to  use  their  best  exertions  to 
bring  about  union  also  in  Antioch  and  Alexandria,  so  that 
it  might  be  brought  about  through  the  whole  empire.5 
There  were  many  hindrances  in  the  way  of  unity,  and,  in 
particular,  the  question  raised  by  the  Scythian  monks  as  to 
whether  we  should  say :  "  One  of  the  Trinity  has  suffered  " 
(see  vol.  iii.  sec.  208).  During  these  new  controversies  the 
Patriarch  John  died,  A.D.  419,  and  a  Synod  held  for  this 
reason  at  Constantinople  (at  the  end  of  519  or  in  520), 
consisting  of  ten  metropolitans  and  as  many  other  bishops, 
informed  the  Pope  that  the  priest  and  syncellus 6  Epiphanius 
had  become  the  successor  of  John.7  The  answer  from  Eome, 
addressed  to  the  Synod,  is  of  date  so  late  as  March  26,  5 2 1.8 

SEC.  234.  Synods  in  Wales  and  at  Tournay. 
We  have  very  scanty  information  respecting  two  Synods 

1  His  Libellus  Fidei  is  in  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  451  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1016  sqq. 

2  Compare  the  account  of  the  legates  in  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  453  sq. 

3  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  456  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1016. 

4  Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  457-460. 

*  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p..  462  sqq.,  and  p.  468  sq. 

6  Chaplain    to  the  late  archbishop.      [On  the    origin    of   the    term,   see 
Dictionary  of  Christian  Antiquities,  g.t>.] 

7  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  491  sqq.  8  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  512  sq. 


which  were  held  about  this  time  in  Wales,  that  part  of  Britain 
which  had  remained  Christian,  the  one  in  the  year  519,  the 
other  somewhat  later.  Occasion  was  given  for  the  former  by 
the  Pelagian  heresy.  In  order  to  suppress  this  in  Wales,  the 
bishops  Germanus  of  Auxerre  and  Lupus  of  Troyes  had  insti- 
tuted a  mission  there  about  ninety  years  earlier,  and  with  great 
results.1  But  the  tares  had  again  grown  rank,  so  that,  in  the 
year  519,  the  bishops  of  Wales  (Cambria),  with  the  abbots 
and  many  other  clergy  and  laity  of  distinction,  assembled  in 
Synod  at  Brevi,  in  the  district  of  Keretica  (Cardigan).  At 
first  they  could  make  no  impression  upon  the  heretical 
populace.  Then  one  of  them,  Paulinus,  proposed  that  the 
holy  Bishop  David  of  Menevia,2  who  had  not  yet  arrived, 
should  be  fetched,  which  was  immediately  done.  David  came, 
made  an  address  accompanied  by  a  miracle,  and  won  their 
hearts  to  such  an  extent  that  all  the  heretics  present 
renounced  their  error.  In  gratitude  for  this,  David  was 
raised  to  be  metropolitan  for  all  Wales;  and  this  dignity, 
which  formerly  belonged  to  the  Urbs  Legionum  (Caerleon  on 
Usk),  was  now  connected  with  the  see  of  Menevia.3 

At  the  other  Synod  in  Wales,  held  somewhat  later  at 
Victoria  (probably  A.D.  520),  they  confirmed  the  decrees  of 
the  assembly  just  mentioned,  which  is  here  called  Sy nodus 
Menevensis,  because  the  Eegio  Keretica,  in  which  it  was  held, 
belonged  to  the  diocese  of  Menevia.  Besides  this  confirmation, 
there  were  at  this  Synod,  as  at  the  former,  many  canons 
passed  for  the  regulation  of  Church  life  in  Wales,  but  they 
have  not  come  down  to  us.4 

To  the  year  520  is  also  assigned  a  Synod  at  Tournay  or 
Doornick  (Tornacum),  in  the  ecclesiastical  province  of  Reims 
(but  now  belonging  to  the  kingdom  of  Belgium),  held  by  the 
bishop  of  that  city,  S.  Eleutherius,  for  the  rooting  out  of 
heresy.  As  he  summoned  only  clergy  and  laity  of  his  own 
diocese  to  this  Synod,  as  the  very  brief  Acts  relate,  we  have 
here  only  a  diocesan  Synod  before  us,  which  demands  so  much 

1  Cf.  Montalembert,  Monks  of  the  West,  vol.  iii. 

2  Menevia  lies  at  the  south-western  corner  of  Wales,  and  received,  in  memory 
of  this  Bishop  David,  the  name  of  S.  David's.     Cf.  Montalembert,  I.e. 

3  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  579  sqq.  4  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  583. 


the  less  consideration,  as  we  have  no  details  except  the  speech 
which  Eleutherius  then  addressed  to  the  assembly,  and  in 
which  he  confessed  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.1 
Even  the  genuineness  of  this  speech,  like  that  of  the  alleged 
writings  of  S.  Eleutherius  generally,  is  not  quite  raised  above 

SEC.  235.  Synodal  Letter  of  tlie  African  Bishops  banished  to 
Sardinia  from  the  Year  523. 

The  Vandal  King  Thrasamund  had  banished  many 
African  bishops  to  Sardinia,  among  them  S.  Fulgentius  of 
Kuspe.  The  celebrity  which  these  men,  especially  Fulgentius, 
gained  on  account  of  their  deep  theological  insight,  led  to 
their  being  consulted  by  strangers,  who  wrote  to  ask  their 
counsel  on  important  questions,  and  especially  by  the  Scythian 
monks  of  Constantinople,  John  Maxentius  at  their  head. 
These  wrote  an  account  of  the  conflict  then  going  on  with  the 
Semipelagian  heresy,  and  especially  against  the  writings  of 
the  late  Bishop  Faustus  of  Eiez.3  Such  a  letter  from  them  is 
still  extant,4  and  gave  occasion  for  the  treatise  of  Fulgentius, 
De  Incarnatione  et  Gratia  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi.  A 
second  letter  of  these  monks,  still  more  important  in  its  con- 
sequences, has  been  lost.  Along  with  it  they  had  sent  to  the 
African  bishops  in  Sardinia  the  writings  of  Faustus  of  Eiez. 
Fulgentius  drew  up,  in  opposition  to  them,  three  books,  De 
Veritate  Prcedestinationis  et  gratim  Dei,  and  seven  books  against 
Faustus.  These  are  no  longer  extant,  but  the  other  three 
books  are  in  all  editions  of  the  works  of  Fulgentius.5  This 
scholar  and  biographer  says  (cc.  28  and  29)  that  he  wrote 
the  seven  books  against  Faustus  whilst  he  was  still  in  Sar- 

1  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  587  sqq. 

2  Cf.  Oudin,  Commentar  in  Script,  eccles.  t.  L  p.  1334  ;  Binterim,  Deutsche 
Cmicilien,  Bd.  i.  S.  396  sq. 

3  A  complete  account  of  this  conflict  in  given  by  Cardinal  Noris  in  his 
Historia  Pelagiana,  lib.  ii.  c.  18  sqq. 

4  Among  the  works  of  S.  Fulgentius  (Eiblioth.  Max.  PP.,  Lugd.  t.  ix.  p.  196), 
and  in  the  appendix  to  the  works  of  Augustine,  in  Migne's  edition,  t.  x.  pt.  ii. 
p.  1772. 

5  So,  e.g.,  in  the  Biblioth.  Max.  PP.,  Lugd.  t.  ix.  p.  232  sqq. 


dinia,  and  the  three,  De  Veritate  Prcedestinationis,  in  Africa 
again,  after  his  deliverance  from  exile  (after  Thrasamund's 
death,  May  28,  523).1 

That  letter  of  the  monks  gave  occasion  for  a  third  letter, 
which,  although  also  written  by  Fulgentius,  was  sent  out  in 
the  name  of  his  colleagues  with  him.  This  is  the  famous 
Epistola  Synodica?  which  has  been  reproduced  in  several 
collections  of  the  Councils.  That  it  emanated  from  Fulgentius 
his  biographer  proves  (c.  20)  beyond  question,  although  his 
name  is  wanting  from  the  twelve  bishops  mentioned  in  the 
superscription.  The  letter  is  addressed  to  the  priest  and 
archimandrite  John,  the  deacon  Venerius,  and  their  associates, 
and  it  is  universally  admitted  that  hereby  John  Maxentius, 
the  abbot  of  the  Scythian  monks,  and  the  monks  themselves  3 
are  meant.  Whether,  however,  this  Epistola  Synodica  had 
been  decided  upon  at  a  formal  Synod  of  these  bishops  must 
remain  undecided.  It  was  formerly  thought  that  it  was 
despatched  from  Sardinia  (A.D.  521),  because  in  sec.  2  it  is  said 
that  the  letter  of  the  monks  had  brought  the  bishops  comfort 
in  exile ;  but  Cardinal  Noris  showed  very  fully 4  that  this 
document  might  have  been  composed  after  the  end  of  the 
exile  in  Africa,  since  in  the  last  paragraph  but  one  the  seven 
books  (of  Fulgentius)  against  Faustus,  and  the  three  books, 
De  Veritate  Prcedestinationis,  are  recommended  to  the  monks 
for  reading.  As  the  latter  of  these  books  falls  into  the  time 
after  the  exile,  still  more  does  the  Epistola  Synodica.  Besides, 
in  sec.  27  of  this  letter  Pope  Hormisdas  is  spoken  of  as  already 
dead  (beatce  memorice) ;  and  his  death  took  place  August  6, 
523,  consequently  later  than  that  of  King  Thrasamund.  We 
arrive  then  at  the  result,  that  the  exiled  bishops  received  the 
letter  of  the  monks  while  they  were  still  in  Sardinia,  during 
their  banishment,  and  answered  it  later  on,  after  their  return 
to  their  native  country. 

1  Biblioth.  Max.  PP.  I.e.  pp.  14  and  15.     On  the  real  day  of  Thrasamund's 
death,  cf.  Noris,  Historia  Pelagiana,  lib.  ii.  c.  21. 

2  In  Mansi,   t.  viii.    p.   591  sqq. ;  Hardouin,   t.  ii.   p.   1005  sqq.     In   the 
Biblioth.  Max.  PP.,  Lugd.  t.  ix.  p.  229  sqq.,  and  in  the  Appendix  to  the  works 
of  Augustine,  Migne,  t.  x.  pt.  ii.  p.  1779  sqq. 

3  Cf.  Noris,  Historia  Pelagiana,  lib.  ii.  c.  21  ;  Walch,  KetzerMst.  Bd.  v.  S. 
127  and  128,  ann.  3.  *  Historia  Pelagiana,  lib.  ii.  c.  21. 


The    principal   contents   of   this   beautiful   letter  are   as 
follows  : — 1.  All  members  of  the  Church  must  have  a  mutual 
care  for  one  another.      2.  We  rejoice  that  you  hold  fast  the 
right  view  on  the  grace  of  God ;  but  it  grieves  us  that,  accord- 
ing to  your  information,  certain  brethren  (Faustus  of  Riez 
and  his  adherents)  desire  to  elevate  human  freedom  too  much, 
in    opposition    to  divine  grace.      3.  This  comes  to   pass   by 
divine    permission,  that  the  power   of    grace    may  be  more 
clearly  seen,  for  it  would  never  be  recognised  if  it  were  not 
granted ;  and  he  who  has  it  opposes  it  neither  in  words  nor  in 
works.     4.  Grace  imparted  by  God  produces  good  words  and 
good,  deeds   and  good  thoughts.      5.  Men   must    know    and 
confess  as  well  the  egena  paupertas  humani  arbitrii  as  the 
indificiens  largitas  divines  gratice.      Before   the  latter  is   im- 
parted to  him,  man  has  certainly  a  liberum,  but  not  a  bonum 
arbitrium,  quia  non  Uluminatum.      6.  In  order,  however,  to 
come  closer  to  the  contents  of  your  letter,  you  say,  sec.  7  : 
Before  Esau  and  Jacob  were  born,  Jacob  was  elected  by  the 
unmerited  mercy  of   God  (misericordia  gratuita) ;  but  Esau, 
because  infected  with  original  sin,  was  rightly  hated  by  God. 
Your   opponents,    however,  maintain :    In  Esau  figuram  esse 
populi  Judceornm,  ex  futuris  malis  operibus  condemnandi ;  in 
Jacob   vero  figuram  esse  populi  gentium,  ex  futuris  operibus 
bonis    salvandl     These    two    statements    should    be    united. 
8.  Those  two  brothers  are  really  the  types  of  the  two  peoples 
named,  but  the  reason  of  their  different  lots  (divine  election 
and  the  hatred  of  God)  is  in  regard  to  the  one  the  gratuita 
bonitas  of  God,  in  regard  to  the  other  the  justa  severitas  of 
God.      Certainly  non  sunt  electa,  neque  dilecta  in  Jacob  humana 
opera,  sed  dona  divina.      9.  Jacob  was  elected  only  through 
the  mercy  of  God,  not  as  a  reward  for  any  kind  of  future 
virtue  (non  pro  meritis  futures  cujusquam  bonce  operationis) ; 
and  God  knew  beforehand  that  He  would  grant  to  him  both 
faith  and  good  wdrks.     Faith,  however,  cannot  be  given  as  a 
reward  for  any  kind  of  good  works,  for  these  are  possible  only 
when  faith  has  first  been  granted  (through  grace).      10.  But 
as  faith  is  granted,  so  also  are  works.      11.  Esau  was  a  vessel 
of  wrath,  and  not  unjustly :  Iram  juste  meruit,  for  God  is  not 
unjust.     As  in  Jacob  God  has  shown  the  misericordia  gratuita: 


bonitatis,  so  in  Esau  the  judicium  justce  severitatis,  because  he, 
through  the  sacrament  of  circumcision,  was  delivered  from  the 
guilt  of  original  sin,1  yet  through  his  nequitia  cordis  retained 
the  old  earthly  man  (in  hominis  terreni  vetustate  permansit). 
In  his  person  not  only  are  those  prefigured  who  deny  the 
faith,  but  also  those  members  of  the  Church  who  persevere  in 
evil  works.  12.  They  are  condemned  like  Esau.  13.  In 
regard  to  children  the  following  is  true :  Parvulus  qui  baptiz- 
atur  gratuita  Dei  bonitate  salvatur ;  qui  vero  sine  baptismate 
moritur  propter  peccatum  originate  damnatur.  14.  On  grace, 
he  thinks  wrongly  who  believes  that  it  is  given  to  all.  There 
exist,  in  fact,  whole  nations  to  whom  grace  has  not  yet  pene- 
trated. 15.  Further,  grace  is  not  given  cequaliter  to  all  who 
have  received  it.  16.  You  say:  Man  desires  salvation  only 
through  the  misericordia  Dei ;  while  they  (the  Semipelagians) 
maintain  :  Nisi  quis  propria  voluntate  cucurrerit  et  elaboraverit, 
salvus  esse  non  poterit.  Both  must  be  held  together :  The 
misericordia  Dei  must  go  before,  human  co-operation  must 
follow.  The  beginning  of  salvation  comes  only  from  the 
divine  mercy,  but  the  human  will  must  co-operate,  must  be 
co-operatrix  suce  salutis,  ut  misericordia  Dei  proveniens  wluntatis 
humance  dirigat  cursum,  et  hurnana  voluntas  obediens,  eadem 
misericordia  subsequente,  secundum  intentionem  currat  ad 
bravium.  The  human  will  will  become  good,  si  Dei  prceveniatur 
dono,  and  will  remain  good,  si  ejus  non  destituatur  auxilio. 
17.  The  words  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  (ix.  18):  Cufus 
vult,  miseretur,  et  quern  vult  indurat,  are  to  be  understood  in 
the  sense  that  S.  Paul  here  brings  forward  his  own  view, 
not  the  objection  of  another.  This  appears  from  what  follows 
(ix.  21).  18.  If,  however,  it  is  said  that  God  hardens,  it 
is  not  meant  that  He  drives  men  to  perverse  conduct,  but  that 
He  does  not  deliver  from  such  a  state,  and  he  who  is  not 
delivered  receives  only  his  due  (recipit  quod  meretur).  19. 
You  refer  to  Phil.  ii.  13,  Deus  operatur  in  vobis  et  velle  et 

1  Above  in  par.  7  the  bishops  said :  Esau  originali  peccato  detentus  justo 
judicio  Dei  est  odio  habitiis  (as  before  his  birth,  so  also  before  his  circumcision, 
he  was  made  a  vas  odii).  Now  they  say  (par.  11)  :  Sacramento  circumcisionis 
— reatu  peccati  originates  caruit.  This  later  view  is  found  in  several  ancient 


operari,  and  on  the  other  hand  to  Isa.  i  19,  Si  volueritis,  .  .  . 
bona  terrce  comedatis.  These  two  passages  also  must  be  taken 
together.  God  commands  man  to  will,  and  also  works  in  him 
to  will ;  and  He  commands  him  to  do,  and  works  in  him  to 
do.  20.  A  view  which  is  too  absurd  is  taken  by  the  oppon- 
ents of  the  expression  Vasa  misericordice,  when  they  would 
understand  by  this,  those  who  are  by  God  endowed  with 
secular  or  spiritual  places  of  honour,  and  by  Vasa  contumelice 
(Horn.  ix.  21),  the  lowly,  monks  and  laymen.  21.  Anyone 
who  opposes  the  Prcedestinatio  Sanctorum  (i.e.  prcedestinatio  ad 
vitam)  assails  Holy  Scripture  (Born,  viii  29 ;  Eph.  i  5 ; 
Horn,  i  4).  22.  The  predestinated  are  those  of  whom  God 
wills  that  they  shall  be  blessed,  and  attain  to  the  knowledge 
of  the  truth.  As  among  these  are  included  people  of  all  con- 
ditions, ages,  sexes,  etc.,  it  is  said,  He  will  have  all  men  to  be 
saved.  Qui  propterea  omnes  dicuntur,  quia  in  utroque  sexu, 
ex  omni  hominum  genere,  gradu,  estate,  et  conditione  salvantur. 
Christ  Himself  says  (S.  John  v.  21),  in  those,  to  whom  HE 
will  give  eternal  life,  He  does  not  wait  for  the  human  will  to 
make  a  beginning,  but  He  gives  life,  since  He  makes  the  will 
itself  to  be  good.  This  is  the  case  with  adults.  In  the  case 
of  children,  however,  where  the  will  cannot  yet  be  made  good, 
He  works  out  their  salvation  by  the  operation  of  grace  alone. 
23.  Freewill,  which  was  sound  in  the  first  man  before  his 
sin,  is  now  repressed,  even  in  the  children  of  God,  by  their 
own  weakness,  but  it  is  restored  through  the  still  stronger 
grace  of  God.  24.  The  question  as  to  the  origin  of  souls, 
whether  they  come  ex  propagine,  or  whether  for  every  new 
body  a  new  soul  is  created  (sive  novce  singulis  corporibus 
fiant),  we  will  pass  over  in  silence.  The  Holy  Scripture  does 
not  decide  this  question,  and  it  should  be  examined  with  pre- 
caution. 25.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  certain  that  the  souls 
of  children  nexu  peccati  originates  obstrictas  esse ;  and  that 
therefore  the  sacrament  of  baptism  is  necessary  for  all,  quo 
dimittitur  peccati  originalis  vinculum,  et  amissa  in  primo 
homine  per  secundum  hominem  recipitur  adoptio  JUiorum. 
26.  Be  steadfast  in  the  faith,  and  pray  for  those  who  have 
not  the  right  faith.  27.  Especially  give  them  the  books  of 
Augustine  to  read  which  he  addressed  to  Prosper  and  Hilarius. 
iv.  9 


28.  This  we  have  in  common  written  to  you.     But  one  of  us 
has   answered   all   the   objections  of  these    erring  brethren, 
against  grace  and   predestination,   in  three   books,  and  has 
written  seven  books  against  Faustus,  which  you  should  read. 

29.  Might    God    grant  to   all   who   had   the   true  faith  an 
increase  thereof,  and  to  others  the  knowledge  of  the  truth.1 

SEC.  236. — Synods  at  Junca  and  Sufes  in  Africa. 

To  the  same  year,  523,  Mansi  assigns  the  Concilium 
Juncense  (Junca)  in  the  province  of  Byzacene  in  Africa,  which 
was  formerly  assigned  to  the  following  year.2  We  still 
possess  a  letter  of  the  president  of  this  Synod,  the  primate  at 
that  time  of  the  province  of  Byzacene,  Liberatus,  to  Archbishop 
Boniface  of  Carthage,  in  which  he  says  that  the  peace  of  the 
Church  had  again  been  restored  at  this  assembly.3  What  was 
further  necessary,  he  said,  would  be  conveyed  by  word  of 
mouth  by  the  bishops  who  were  intrusted  with  the  letter. 
The  peace  of  the  Church  had  been  disturbed,  partly  by  the 
conflict  of  Liberatus  with  a  monastery  (see  sec.  238  below), 
and  partly  because  Bishop  Vincentius  of  Girba  (Girbitanus) 
had  invaded  the  province  of  Byzacene,  although  he  belonged 
to  the  province  of  Tripolis,  consequently  from  a  strange 
province.4  Ferrandus  in  his  Breviarium  Canonicum,  c.  26, 
gives  us  a  canon  of  this  Synod,  which  runs  thus :  Ut  in  plebe 
aliena  nullus  sibi  episcopus  audeat  vindicare.5  Finally,  we  learn 
from  the  biography  of  S.  Fulgentius,  c.  29,  that  he  was  also 
present  at  one  Synod  (called,  by  an  error  of  the  transcriber, 
Vincensis  instead  of  Juncensis),  and  that  the  Synod  gave  him 

1  An  historical  and  doctrinal  dissertation  on  this  Epistola  Synodica  is  given 
by  Cardinal  Aguirre  in  the  second  volume  of  his  Concilia  Hispanise. 

-  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  634.  At  p.  652  Mansi  gives  a  letter  of  Archbishop 
Boniface  of  Carthage  addressed  to  the  bishops  who  were  at  the  Council  of  Junca. 
This  letter  is  dated  xvii.  Kal.  Januarii,  anno  primo  (i.e.  of  the  Vandal  King 
Childeric),  and  says  that  for  the  following  year  Easter  is  on  the  vii.  Idus 
April.  This  letter  is  consequently  written  in  December  523,  and  thus  gives  us 
the  date  of  the  Synod  of  Junca. 

3  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  633  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1085. 

4  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  633  and  652.     Further  on  the  Synod  of  Junca  we  shall  find 
below  in  the  history  of  the  Council  of  Carthage,  A.D.  525. 

5  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  633. 

THE  SYNODS   AT  ARLES,  LERIDA,   ETC.,  A.D.   534  (546).      131 

precedency  over  another  bishop  named  Quodvultdeus.  As 
the  latter  was  hurt  by  this,  Fulgentius  himself  requested  at 
the  next  Council,  which  was  held  at  Sufes  (Sufetanum),  also 
belonging  to  the  province  of  Byzacene,  that  Quodvultdeus 
should  again  be  given  precedence  of  him.1  No  more  is  known 
of  the  Synod  of  Sufes. 

SEC.  237. — The  Synods  at  Aries,  Lerida,  and  Valencia, 
A.D.  524  (546). 

The  great  East  Gothic  King  Theoderic  had,  in  the  year 
507,  plundered  the  city  of  Aries,  and  had  incorporated  it, 
together  with  a  part  of  G-allia  Narbonensis,  if  only  for  a  short 
time,  into  his  own  kingdom.2  Besides,  as  we  know,  he  ad- 
ministered the  Spanish  West  Gothic  kingdom  as  guarcfian  of 
Amalrich  (see  above,  sec.  229).  In  the  great  domain  which 
thus  owned  his  sceptre,  three  Synods  were  held  in  the  year 
524,  at  Aries  in  South  Gaul,  and  at  Lerida  and  Valencia  in 
Spain.  The  Synod  at  Aries,  often  called  the  third,  but  more 
properly  the  fourth,  held  on  June  6,  524,  numbered  thirteen 
bishops  and  four  representatives  of  absent  bishops.  The 
names  of  the  episcopal  sees  are  not  given  in  the  short  Acts,  and 
the  president,  Ceesarius,  was  evidently  the  famous  Archbishop 
Caesarius  of  Aries,  already  frequently  mentioned.  In  the 
preface  to  the  Acts  it  is  remarked  that  the  dedication  of  the 
Basilica  of  S.  Mary  at  Aries  was  the  occasion  of  this 
assembly.  In  order,  on  some  points,  to  restore  the  ancient 
Church  disciple,  they  decreed  tour  canons,  which  are  essentially 
only  renewals  of  more  ancient  ordinances : — 

1.  No  one  is  to  be  ordained  bishop  before  his  twenty-fifth 
year,  and  no  layman  is  to  be  a  bishop  unless  his  conversion  3 
has  preceded,  or  he  is  thirty  years  old.  Cf.  cc.  16  and  17  of 
the  Synod  of  Agde,  sec.  222. 

1  Ferrandi  Fulgentii  Vita  S.  Fulgentii  in  Biblioth.  PP.  Max.,  Lugd.  t.  ix. 
p.  15  ;  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  634. 

2  Gallia  Christ,  t.  i.  p.  535 ;  Sirmond,  Condi.  Gallise,  t.  i.  p.  604 ;  Mansi, 
t.  viii.  p.  632. 

3  Conversio  signifies  ordinarily  entrance  into  the  monastic  state,  or  in  general 
the  vow  to  renounce  the  world  and  lead  an  ascetic  life.     Thus  conversion  Pro- 
fessio continentise.    Cf.  Du  Cange,  Glossar.  a.h.l.,  and  above,  sec.  222,  c.  16,  note. 


2.  No  layman  is  to  be  ordained  bishop,  priest,  or  deacon 
unless  he  has,  for  one  year  at  least,  been  converted  (taken 
the  vow  of  continence).     At  an  earlier  period  a  longer  period 
was  required,  but  the  increase  in  the  number  of  the  churches 
now  makes  a  greater  number  of  clerics  necessary. 

3.  No  one  who  has  done  penance,  or  who  has  married  a 
second  time,  or  a  widow,  must  be  ordained  bishop,  priest,  or 
deacon.     A  bishop  who,  nevertheless,  ordains  one  of  these, 
shall  not  say  Mass  for  a  year ;  and  if  he  does  this  he  will  be 
excluded  db  omnium  fratrum  caritate   (cf.  sec.  200,  c.  20    of 
Chalcedon).      Eeceived  into   the   Corpus  j'ur.  can.  as    c.    2, 
Dist.  Iv. 

4.  If  a  cleric   takes   to   flight  in  order  to  escape  from 
Church  discipline,  no  one  (i.e.  no  other  bishop)  must  receive 
him,  still  less    defend    him,   on   penalty   of   exclusion    from 
Church  communion.1 

5.  Gratian,  Burchard,  and  others  ascribe  to  many  Synods 
of  this  period  (sec.  231  and  sec.  232),  and  Worms  among  them, 
several  other  canons,  which  partly  belong  to  other  Synods 
and  partly  are   of  doubtful  genuineness.     Mansi  has   them 
collected,  I.e.  p.  627  sqq. 

Just  two  months  later,  on  August  6,  524,2  eight  bishops, 
and  a  priest  as  representative  of  his  bishop,  assembled  in  the 
Church  of  S.  Eulalia  at  Ilerda  (Lerida)  in  the  ecclesiastical 
province  of  Tarragona.  The  names  of  their  sees  are  only 
partially  given  in  the  Acts.  We  learn  them,  however, 
completely  from  other  sources,  in  Florez,  Espana  Sagra, 
t.  46,  p.  99,  and  Ferreras,  History  of  Spain,  vol.  ii. 
Hence  we  learn  that  Sergius,  archbishop  of  Tarragona,  was 
the  president  of  this  Synod ;  Justus,  bishop  of  Urgelis, 
Casonius  or  Castonius,  bishop  of  Ampurias,  John,  bishop  of 

1  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  626  sq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1070  sq. 

2  This  date  is  given  in  the  superscription  of  the  Acts  of  this  Council,  which 
has :  Anno  xv.  Theuduredi  vel  Theorderici  regis.    But  it  has  been  contended  by 
Cardinal  Aguirre,  and  after  him  by  Pagi  (ad.  ann.  546,  etc.,  10  and  11),  Florez 
(Espana  Sagrada,  t.  46,  p.  99),  Ferreras  (Hist,  of  Spain,  vol.  ii.),  and  others, 
that,  instead  of  Theuduredi,  we  should  read  Theudis  (or  else  that  Theudes  had 
the  surname  of  Theoderic),  and,  as  King  Theudes  began  to  reign  in  December 
531,  it  is  necessary  to  remove  our  Synod,  and  also  the  following  one  at  Valencia, 
to  the  year  546. 

SYNODS  AT  ARLES,  LERIDA,  ETC.,  A.D.   524    (546).         133 

Sarragossa,  Paternus,  bishop  of  Barcelona,  Maurelio,  bishop  of 
Dertosa  (Tortosa),  Taurus,  bishop  of  Egara,  Februarius  of 
Lerida,  and  Gratus,  representative  of  Bishop  Staphylius  of 
Gerundum.  They  drew  up  the  following  canons  : l — 

1.  In  regard  to  the  clergy  in  a  beleaguered  town  it  is 
ordained,  that  while  they  serve  at  the  altar  and  communicate 
the   blood   of  Christ  and   handle  the   vessels  appointed  for 
divine  service,  they  must  shed  no  human  blood,  not  even  that 
of  their   enemies.     If,  however,   they   do   so,  they   must   be 
excluded  for  two  years  from  their  office  and  from  communion. 
If  in  these  two  years  they  have  expiated  their  offence  by 
watching,  fasting,  prayer,  and  almsgiving,  they  may  again  be 
restored  to  office  and  to  communion,  but  they  may  not  be 
advanced  to  any  higher  office.     If,  however,  they  have  shown 
themselves  slothful  in  regard  to  their  spiritual  welfare  dur- 
ing   the    time    of    their    suspension,    the    bishop    (sacerdos) 
may  prolong    their    time    of    penance. — Taken    into    c.    36, 
Dist.  1. 

2.  If    anyone    should    seek    to  put  to   death    his   child 
begotten  in  adultery,  whether  after  its  birth  or  in  its  mother's 
womb,  he  may  after  seven  years  be  again  admitted  to  com- 
munion, but  must,  for  his  whole  life,  remain  in  penitence  and 
humility.     If  he  is  a  cleric,  he  can  never  again  be  placed  in 
his  office,  but  may,  after  obtaining  communion,  only  act  as 
singer.     To  poisoners,  however,  even  if  they  have  steadfastly 
lamented   their   crime,   communion   may  again    be  imparted 
only  at  the  end  of  their  life. 

3.  In   regard  to  monks,  the  ordinance  of  the  Synod  of 
Agde  (c.  27),  or  Orleans  (i.  15—17),  shall  be  confirmed;2  and 
it  is  only  to  be  added  that  the  bishop  has  the  right,  with  the 
assent  of  the  abbot,  to  ordain  for  the  service  of  the  Church 
those   monks   whom   he   has   known   to   be    qualified.      But 
anything  which  has  been  given  to  the  monasteries  as  presents 
is  not  at  the  disposal  of  the  bishop.     A  layman  who  wishes 

1  Printed  in  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  612  sqq.  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1064  sqq. ;  and 
in  Gonsalez,  Collection  de  Canones  de  la  iglesia  Hspanola,  Madrid,  1849,  t.  ii.  p. 
138  sqq.  ;  cf.  Gams,  Kircheng.  v.  Spanien  (1864),  Bd.  ii.  S.  438  tf. 

2  According  to  Hardouin,  the  addition,  vel  Aurelianensis,  is  wanting  in 
some  manuscripts. 


to  have  a  church  built  by  him  consecrated,  must  not  withdraw 
it  from  the  authority  of  the  bishop  under  the  pretext  that  it 
is  a  monastic  church,  whilst  no  monks  are  in  it  and  no  rule 
for  it  has  been  drawn  up  by  the  bishop.  Cf.  34,  C.  xvi.  q.  1, 
and  C.  x.  q.  1. 

4.  Incestuous  persons,  so  long  as  they   remain  in   their 
criminal   intercourse,  must   be  admitted   only  to  the    Missa 
Catechumenorum,  and  none  of  the  faithful  must  eat  with  them, 
in  accordance  with   1   Cor.  v.  9  and   11.     Cf.  c.  9,  C.  xxxv. 
q.  2  and  3. 

5.  If  clerics  who  serve  at  the  altar  have  fallen  into  a  sin 
of  the  flesh,  but  have  done  penance,  it  lies  in  the  power  of 
the    bishop    to   suspend   the   deeply  penitent    for    no    great 
length  of  time,  but  to  separate  the  more  negligent  for  a  longer 
time  from  the  body  of  the  Church.     They  may,  after  their 
restoration,  receive  their  posts  again,  but   they  may  not  be 
advanced  to  higher  offices.     If  they  fall  back  into  sin,  they 
shall  not  only  be  deposed,  but  they  shall  no  longer  receive 
communion,  unless  when  they  draw  near  to  death.     Cf.  c.  52, 
Dist.  1.,  and  c.  2,  C.  xv.  q.  8. 

6.  If  anyone  has  violated  (vim  stupri  intulerit)  a  widow 
vowed  to  continence,1  or  a  nun  (virgo  religiosa),  if  he  will  not 
separate  from  her,  must  be  excluded  from  the  communion,  and 
from  intercourse  with  Christians.     But  if  the  violated  woman 
has  returned  to  the  ascetic  life  (vita  religiosa),  then  so  long  as 
he  does  not  do  public  penance,  the  sentence  above  mentioned 
shall  be  confirmed. 

7.  If  anyone  pledges  himself  by  an  oath  never  to  become 
reconciled  with  his   opponent,  he  must,  on  account  of  this 
sinful  oath,  be  excluded  for  a  year  from  the  communion  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  the  Lord,  and  he  must  blot  out  his  fault  by 
alms,  prayers,  and  the  severest  possible  fasting,  and  endeavour, 
as    soon    as    possible,   to   attain   to  love,    "  which    covers    a 
multitude  of  sins"  (1  Pet.  iv.  8).     Cf.  c.  11,  C.  xxii.  q.  4. 

8.  No  cleric  must  take  his  servant  or  scholar  out  of  a 
church  to  which  he  has  fled  (in  order  to  escape  punishment), 

1  Vidua  pcenitens  is  a  widow  who  has  laid  aside  the  vow  of  matrimony 
in  order  to  live  the  ascetic  life — a  pendant  to  the  Vir  conversus  or  pcenitens. 
See  above,  sec.  222. 

SYNODS  AT   ARLES,   LERIDA,  ETC.,  A.D.   514   (546).  135 

or  scourge  him.  If  he  does  so,  he  must,  until  he  does  penance, 
be  excluded  from  the  place  which  he  has  not  honoured  (i.e. 
the  Church).  Cf.  c.  17,  C.  xvii.  q.  4. 

9.  In  regard  to  those  who  have  received  sinful  baptism 
(i.e.  from  a  sect),  without  being  constrained  by  compulsion 
or  fear  of  martyrdom,  the  ordinances  (c.  11)  of  the  Synod  of 
Nicsea  on  sinners  (who  have  erred  without  being  driven  to  it 
by  necessity)  shall  apply  to  them,  namely,  that  they  must 
worship    for  seven  years  among  the  catechumens  and  two 
years  among  the  faithful  (in  the  fourth  degree  of  penitence), 
and  then,  through  the  kindness   of  the  bishop,  again   may 
assist  at  the  sacrifice  and  the  eucharist. 

10.  If    the   bishop  shall   order  anyone,  because  of  any 
kind  of  fault,  to  go  out  of  the  church,1  and  he  does  not  obey, 
he  must,  for  his  obstinacy  be  punished  for  a  considerable  time, 
and  then  receive  pardon.     Cf.  c.  39,  C.  xi.  q.  3. 

11.  If  clerics  have  fallen  into  hostility  (and  have  fought), 
they  must  be  punished  by  the  bishop  in  a  manner  correspond- 
ing with  their  degradation  of  their  office. 

12.  If  a  bishop  has,  in  the  past,  ordained  clerics  without 
proper  precautions,  may  God  and  the  Church  forgive  him.     In 
future,  however,  the  canonical  ordinances  which  forbid  such 
ordinances  must  come  into  force.     Whoever  shall  in  future 
be  ordained  in  contravention  of  them,  must  be  deposed  ;  and 
those  who  have  already  been  improperly  ordained,  shall  not 
be  advanced  to  higher  dignities. 

13.  If  a  Catholic  lets  his  children  be  baptized  by  heretics, 
his  offering  shall  not  be  received  in  the  Church. 

14.  The  faithful  must  have  no  fellowship  at  all  with  the 
rebaptized,  nor  even  eat  with  them. 

15.  Intercourse  with  strange  women  has  been  forbidden 
to    the   clergy    by  the  ancient  Fathers.      Whoever,  after  a 
second  warning,  does  not  correct  himself,  shall  be  deprived  of 
the  dignity  of  his  office  so  long  as  he  perseveres  in  his  error. 
When  he  has  corrected  himself,  he  may  be  restored  to  the 
sacred  ministry. 

1  Fen-eras  in  his  History  of  Spain,  vol.  ii.,  suggests  that,  instead  of 
ab  ecdesia  exire,  we  should  read  ad  eeclesiam  venire.  But  certainly  no  change 
is  necessary. 


16.  When  a  bishop  has  died,  or  is  near  to  death,  no  cleric 
must  take  anything  from  the  episcopal  residence,  neither  by 
violence  nor  by  cunning.  Nothing  must  be  carried  off  secretly, 
nothing  concealed  ;  but  the  episcopal  house  must  be  intrusted 
to  a  (clerical)  administrator,  with  one  or  two  assistants,  so 
that  all  may  be  preserved  until  the  admission  to  office  of  the 
new  bishop.  Whoever  acts  otherwise  must,  as  guilty  of 
sacrilege,  be  smitten  with  the  prolixiore  anathemate  (i.e. 
excommunicatio  major) :  to  him  shall  scarcely  be  given  the 
communio  peregrina  (Reus  sacrilegii  prolixiori  anathemate 
condemnetur,  et  vix  quoque  peregrina  ei  communio  concedatur).1 
According  to  the  explanation  given  above  of  communio 
peregrina  (under  c.  2  of  Agde,  sec.  222),  our  passage  gives 
this  good  meaning :  "  Such  clerics  shall  be  excluded  from 
Church  communion  for  a  considerable  time ;  and  they  shall 
hardly  receive  that  amount  of  support  which  is  given  to 
travelling  Christians  who  have  no  letters  of  peace  with  them." 

Other  ordinances,  which  the  mediaeval  collectors  of  canons 
assigned  to  the  Synod  of  Lerida,  are  placed  here  by  Mansi  (I.e. 
p.  616  sqq.). 

What  has  already  been  said  in  reference  to  the  time  of 
the  holding  of  the  Synod  of  Lerida  is  equally  applicable  to 
that  of  Valencia  in  Spam,  a  large  and  famous  city  on  the 
coast  of  the  Mediterranean  which  then  belonged  to  the  pro- 
vince of  Toledo,  but  subsequently  formed  the  metropolis  of  a 
province  of  its  own,  Valentiana.  This  Synod  also  was  held  in 
the  fifteenth  year  either  of  Theoderic  or  of  King  Theudes,  and 
on  the  4th  of  December.  The  Acts  are  subscribed  by  six 
bishops,  Celsinus,  Justinus,  Eeparatus,  Setabius,  Benagius,  and 
Ampellius,  and  an  Archdeacon  Sallustius  as  representative  of 
his  bishop,  Marcellinus ;  but  the  sees  of  these  bishops  are  not 
named.  Ferraras  suggests  that  the  bishop  named  Celsinus, 
who  stands  at  the  head  of  his  colleagues,  is  no  other  than 
Archbishop  Celsus  of  Toledo.  If  this  suggestion  is  correct, 
then  our  Synod  must  belong  to  the  fifteenth  year  of  Theoderic, 
and  so  to  the  year  524 ;  for  in  the  year  531  the  celebrated 
Archbishop  Montanus,  the  successor  of  Celsus,  occupied  the 

1  After  communio    some   editions  have  improperly  inserted  animse ;    but 
Hardouin  corrected  the  error. 

SYNODS   AT  ARLE9,  LERIDA,  ETC.,  A.D.  524  (546).  137 

see  of  Toledo.1  Mansi,  however,  thought  that  by  Celsinus  is 
meant  the  bishop  of  Valencia  who  bore  this  name,  who  was 
present,  in  590,  at  the  third  Council  of  Toledo ;  and  in  that 
case  our  Synod  would  have  to  be  removed  to  the  end  of  the 
sixth  century.2  Entire  certainty  in  regard  to  this  chrono- 
logical question  is  not  attainable. 

The  decrees  of  Valencia 3  have  some  affinity  with  those 
of  Lerida,  and  thereby  show  that  they  are  contemporaneous 
with  them.  As  at  other  Synods,  so  at  Valencia,  the  older 
ecclesiastical  canons  were  read  aloud  and  enforced  afresh,  and 
only  six  additions  as  special  Capitula  were  added  to  the  Acts : — 

1.  The   Gospel  is  to  be  read   before   the  oblation  (ante 
munerum  illationem),   or    before  the   dismissal   of   the   cate- 
chumens,4 or  after  the  Epistle  (Apostolus),  so  that  not  only 
the  faithful,  but  also  the  catechumens,  penitents,  and  all  others 
may   hear  the  word  of  God  and  the  sermon  of  the    bishop. 
For  it  is  well  known  that  through  the  hearing  of  preaching 
many  have    been    led  to  the  faith.     Cf.  c.   18  of  the  first 
Synod  of  Orange  (vol.  iii.  sec.  162). 

2.  It  is  peremptorily  forbidden  to  clerics  after  the  death 
of  the  bishop  to   appropriate   anything  which   he    has   left 
behind.      In  accordance  with  the   ordinance  (c.    6)   of    the 
Synod  of  Riez  (vol.  iii.  sec.  161),  a  neighbouring  bishop,  after 
the  celebration  of  the  obsequies,  should  take  the  oversight  of 
the  orphaned  church,  and  an  accurate  inventory  of  the  late 
bishop's    property   should  be   drawn    up    and    sent    to    the 
metropolitan.       Afterwards  an   administrator   of   the  vacant 
diocese  should  be  appointed,  who  should  pay  their  stipends 
to  the  clergy,  and  give  an  account  to  the  metropolitan.     Cf. 
c.  16  of  the  Synod  of  Lerida. 

3.  Even   the  relations  of  the  departed  bishop  may  not 
appropriate    anything    of    what    he    has    left    without    the 

1  Cf.  under  the  second  Synod  of  Toledo  of  A.D.  531,  and  Florez,  Espana 
Sagrada,  t.  v.  p.  247  sqq. 

2  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  626. 

8  In  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  619  sqq.  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1067  sqq. ;  Gonsalez,  p. 
146  sqq. 

4  Instead  of  ante  missam  cattchumenorum,  Mansi  (I.e.  p.  620)  proposes  to 
read  in  missa.  But  no  alteration  is  necessary,  if  we  take  missa  in  the  original 
and  immediate  meaning =dimissio. 


previous  knowledge  of  the  metropolitan  or  of  the  com- 
provincial bishop,  so  that  Church  property  may  not  be 
mixed  with  the  private  property  of  the  testator. 

4.  It  will  no  longer    be   allowed  that    the    body  of    a 
departed  bishop  should  remain  too  long  unburied  because  of 
the  absence  of    the  episcopus  commendator}-      Therefore  the 
bishop  on  whom  the  burial  by  succession  devolves  shall  visit 
his  sick  colleague  while  he  lives,  in  order  either  to  congratulate 
him  on  his  restoration  to  health,  or  to  exhort  him  to  set  his 
house  in  order.     He  shall  give  effect  to  his  last  wishes ;  and 
if  he  dies,  he  shall  first  offer  the  holy  sacrifice  (  Sacrificium)  for 
the  departed,  then  bury  him,  and  carry  out  what  is  prescribed 
in  the  foregoing  canon.     If,  however,  a  bishop  dies  suddenly, 
without    neighbouring    bishops  being  able  to  be  present,  his 
body  shall  be  laid  out  only  a  day  and  a  night,  surrounded 
by  singing  brothers  (clerics),  monks,  and  others.     Then  shall 
the  priests  lay  him  in  a  retired  place,  but  not  bury  him,  only 
continue    in    an    honourable    manner    the    prayers   for   him 
(honorifice  commendetur),  until  a  bishop,   called  in  with  all 
possible  despatch,  inter  him  solemnly  and  in  a  fitting  manner. 

5.  If  a  cleric,  or  a  deacon,  or  a  priest  does  not  remain 
steadily  at  the  church  which  is  intrusted  to  him,  but  goes 
about  in  an  unsettled  manner,  he  shall,  as  long  as  he  continues 
in  this  fault,  be  deprived  of  the  communion  and  his  position. 

6.  No  one  may  ordain  a  strange  cleric  without  the  con- 
currence of  his  bishop.     Moreover,  the  bishop  may  not  ordain 
anyone  who  has  not  first  promised  to  remain  in  his  position. 

Six  other  canons  which,  in  the  collection  of  Burchard  of 
Worms  are  assigned  to  a  Concilium  Valentinum,  without 
indication  whether  Valencia  in  Spain  or  Valence  in  France  is 
meant,  are  in  Mansi's  collection,  t.  viii.  p.  623. 

SEC.  238.  Synod  at  Carthage,  A.D.  525. 

After  the  death  of  the  Vandal  King  Thrasamund  (May 
28,  523)  his  successor  Hilderic  put  an  end  to  the  protracted 
oppression  of  the  Catholics,  recalled  the  banished  bishops,  and, 

1  Commendationes&rz  the  prayers  for  the  dead,  as  Du  Cange,  Glossar.  (s.  v. ),  fully 
shows.     The  commendator  is  therefore  the  person  who  clebrates  the  obsequies. 

SYNOD  AT   CARTIIAGE,  A.D.   525.  139 

at  the  wish  of  the  inhabitants  of  Carthage,  gave  his  consent 
that  Boniface,  who  became  afterwards  so  famous,  should  be 
elected  bishop  and  primate,  and  should  be  consecrated  in  the 
Basilica  of  S.  Agileus  the  Martyr.1  In  the  sacristy  of  the 
same  church  Archbishop  Boniface  held  his  first  Synod,  which, 
as  the  Acts  declare,  began  February  5,  525,  and  was  attended 
by  bishops  from  the  most  diverse  dioceses  of  Africa.  Their 
names,  sixty  in  number,  are  found  in  the  subscription  of  the 
minutes  of  the  Synod,  and  there  were  also  many  deputies  and 
representatives  of  their  provinces.  The  bishops  sat,  beside 
and  behind  them  stood  the  deacons.  Boniface,  as  president, 
spoke  first,  expressing  his  great  joy  at  the  Synod  taking  place, 
and  at  the  restoration  of  liberty  to  the  Church,  i.e.  at  the  end  of 
the  persecution.2  Another  bishop  answered  him  (the  minutes 
are  here  defective),  spoke  of  the  joy  of  all  in  having  so 
excellent  a  president  as  Boniface,  and  besought  him,  for  the 
advantage  of  the  African  Church,  to  procure  for  the  canons 
their  earlier  respect,  and  to  re-establish  again  the  regula- 
tions of  his  lamented  predecessor  Aurelius.3  Thereupon  the 
legitimation  of  the  deputies  sent  from  the  different  provinces 
took  place  ;  and  Boniface  first  had  his  letter  read  which  he 
had  sent  to  the  Primate4  Missor  of  Numidia,  in  which  he 
requested  this  metropolitan,  who  on  account  of  age  was  himself 
unable  to  appear,  to  send  three  plenipotentiaries,  and  himself 
designated  those  whom  he  wished  to  be  sent.  He  also 
declared  in  this  letter  that  it  was  a  principal  business  of  the 
Council  to  bring  down  the  pride  of  some  bishops  who  wished 
to  exalt  themselves  over  such  as  had  precedence  of  them,  and, 
as  it  seems,  even  sought  to  get  rid  of  their  subordination  to 
the  archbishop  of  Carthage.5  On  this  account  it  was  neces- 

1  Cf.  the  original  documents  in  Mansi,  t  viii  p.  635. 

2  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  636  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1071. 

3  Archbishop  Aurelius  was  still  alive  A.D.  426.     After  him  Quodvultdeus 
occupied  the  see  of  Carthage  only  a  short  time  (Baronius,  ad  ami.  430,  n.  74). 
He  was  succeeded  by  Capreolus,  who,  as  we  saw  above  (sec.  134),  wrote,  in  the 
year  431,  to  the  Synod  of  Ephesus.     By  an  error,  Butler  (Lives  of  the  Saints) 
places  the  death  of  Aurelius  at  A.D.  423. 

4  On  the  word  Primas,  in  the  African  sense,  cf.  sec.  109. 

5  Scarcely  had  the  African  bishops  returned  from  exile  and  been  freed  from 
persecution  when  contests   about  precedence  broke  out  among   them,  as  we 
have  already  seen  in  the  history  of  the  Synods  of  Junca  and  Sufes,  sec.  236. 


sary  that  the  order  of  precedence  among  the  African  bishops 
should  now  be  established  by  the  Synod.  He  also  indicated 
to  Missor,  according  to  ancient  custom,  as  he  said,  the  day 
for  the  next  Easter  festival  (May  30,  525).1 

To  the  question  of  the  archbishop,  whether  deputies  from 
Numidia  were  present,  and  had  brought  with  them  a  letter 
from  their  primate,  Bishop  Florentius  of  Vicopacatum  answered, 
in  their  name,  in  the  affirmative,  and  requested  that  Missor's 
letter  might  be  read.  The  primate  of  Numidia  expressed  his 
sorrow  at  the  disputes  about  precedency  which  had  arisen, 
and  at  the  wrongs  which  had  been  done  to  Boniface.  He 
praises  his  patience  and  forbearance,  but  points  out  that 
thereby,  and  because  Boniface  had  not  been  willing  to  settle 
the  controversy  himself, — a  duty  which  was  incumbent  upon 
him, — the  insolence  of  some  had  grown  greater.  Boniface,  he 
said,  had  indicated  three  Numidian  bishops  whom  Missor  was 
to  send  as  deputies  to  the  Synod ;  but  one  of  these,  Marianus 
of  Tullia,  before  the  arrival  of  the  letter,  had  on  his  own 
account  set  off  for  the  Synod,  and  therefore  Bishop  Florentius 
had  been  appointed  as  the  third  deputy  from  Numidia. 
As  he  had  no  doubt  that  Januarius  (also  a  Numidian  bishop), 
the  consecrator  of  Boniface,  was  present  at  the  Synod,  he  had 
written  to  him  and  requested  him,  with  the  Numidian 
deputies,  in  the  impending  controversies,  to  give  assistance 
to  the  side  which  was  in  the  right.2 

Boniface  had  also  addressed  letters  of  invitation  to  the 
bishops  of  Asia  Proconsularis  and  the  province  of  Tripoli, 
which  were  now  read.  Deputies  were  present  from  these 
also,  and  also  from  Mauretania  Ceesariensis  and  Sitifensis. 
The  Primate  Liberatus  of  the  province  of  Byzacene,  on  the 
contrary,  in  spite  of  repeated  invitations,  had  not  appeared, 
on  which  Boniface  expressed  himself  very  freely.  On  the 
following  day  the  bishops  requested  that,  in  case  he  should 
not  then  appear,  they  should  consult  on  the  subject  of  his 
non-appearance,  and  the  Numidian  deputy,  Bishop  Felix,  at 
the  close  of  a  very  courteous  speech,  expressed  the  wish  that 
Boniface  should  now  settle  to  whom  the  rank  next  to  him 

1  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  637  sq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1072  sq. 

2  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  638  sq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1073  sq. 

SYNOD  AT  CARTHAGE,  A.D.   525.  141 

should  belong.  Appealing  to  the  19th  canon  of  the  Synod 
of  Carthage  of  A.D.  418  (c.  127  in  the  Codex  Ecclesiae 
Africanae),  Boniface  explained  that,  according  to  the  ancient 
practice  of  the  proconsular  province  (Carthage),  Numidia 
came  next,  and  then  Byzacene,  etc.  Whoever  should  venture 
to  disturb  this  order  should  be  deposed.  Hereupon  he  caused 
to  be  read  the  Creed  of  Nicaea,  and  at  the  request  of  several, 
also  a  series  of  such  ancient  canons,  chiefly  of  African  Councils, 
as  he  considered  specially  suitable  for  the  instruction  of  the 
newly  appointed  bishops ;  among  them,  at  the  express  wish 
of  the  Synod,  those  canons  also  which  treated  of  the  pre- 
cedence and  the  privileges  of  the  see  of  Carthage,  or  could  be 
related  to  the  subject.  With  this  closed  the  session  of  the 
first  day,  late  at  night ;  and  all  the  bishops  present  signed  the 
minutes  together  with  the  documents,  which  had  been  read, 
embodied  in  them,  the  canons  and  the  Nicene  Creed.1 

On  the  next  day,  February  6,  the  bishops  assembled  again 
in  the  sacristy  of  the  Church  of  S.  Agileus,  and  Archbishop 
Boniface  opened  this  second  session  with  the  announce- 
ment :  Everything  which  touched  the  African  Church  in 
general  had  been  brought  to  an  end  yesterday,  so  that  they 
could  now  pass  on  to  special  business,  and  settle  any  requests 
and  representations  of  particular  persons.  The  Deacon 
Gaudiosus  now  informed  them  that  the  Abbot  Peter,  with 
some  older  monks  from  his  monastery,  stood  at  the  door  and 
asked  permission  to  appear  before  the  Synod.  When  Boni- 
face granted  the  request,  the  Abbot  Peter  presented  in  his  own 
name  and  in  the  name  of  his  monks  an  accusation  in  writing 
against  Liberatus,  the  primate  of  the  province  of  Byzacene, 
who  had,  at  the  numerous  Synods  held  by  him,  endeavoured 
to  bring  ruin  upon  their  monastery,  and  had  irregularly 
inflicted  the  heavier  excommunication  upon  them.  The 
assembled  bishops  were  therefore  requested  to  interest  them- 
selves in  the  monks,  as  they  had  never  failed  either  in  regard 
to  the  faith  or  in  regard  to  good  morals. 

After  the  hearing  of  this  memorial,  which  was  embodied 

1  Mansi,  t.  viii.  pp.  640-648  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  pp.  1074-1082.  On  the  order 
of  precedence  in  the  African  Church,  cf.  Norisii  Opp.  ed.  Bailer,  t.  iv.  p. 
1027  sqq. 


in  the  Acts,  Archbishop  Boniface  expressed  his  displeasure 
with  Liberatus,  who  had  disquieted  the  monks,  and  had 
refused  to  recognise  the  privileges  of  the  see  of  Carthage, 
and  ordered  the  reading  of  all  the  letters  relating  to  this 
controversy.  The  first  of  these,  an  earlier  letter  of  Abbot 
Peter  to  Archbishop  Boniface,  explained  the  nature  of  the 
special  business.  So  long  as  there  was  no  bishop  at  Carthage 
on  account  of  the  persecution,  the  monks  had  requested  the 
primate  of  the  province  of  Byzacene,  who  was  near  to  them, 
to  ordain  one  of  their  number  as  an  ecclesiastic  for  the  needs 
of  the  monastery.  This  was  done,  and  from  this  Liberatus 
had  now  inferred  that  the  monastery  was  subject  to  him, 
whilst  it  was  only  in  the  archbishop  of  Carthage  that  they 
recognised  their  spiritual  superior. 

The  second  document  was  the  letter  from  Liberatus  to 
Archbishop  Boniface  of  Carthage,  presented  at  the  Synod  of 
Junca,  which  has  been  mentioned  above  (sec.  236),  and  in 
which  the  assurance  is  given  that  full  ecclesiastical  liberty 
prevailed  in  the  province  of  Byzacene.  On  this  followed, 
as  third  document,  the  answer  which  Boniface  had  then 
given  to  Liberatus  and  to  the  Council  of  Junca.  After  a 
very  courteous  introduction,  Liberatus  is  exhorted  to  put 
away  everything  which  might  interrupt  the  peace  of  the 
Church,  and  then  it  is  definitely  declared  that  it  was  im- 
possible to  agree  with  what  had  been  brought  back,  by  word 
of  mouth,  by  the  deputies  from  the  Synod  of  Junca,  or  to 
alter  the  old  Church  laws  (i.e.  in  reference  to  the  rights  of 
the  see  of  Carthage).  At  the  close  the  time  for  the  next 
Easter  festival  (for  A.D.  524)  is  given. 

The  fourth  document  is  again  a  letter  of  Abbot  Peter  and 
his  monks  to  Archbishop  Boniface,  composed  probably  about 
the  same  time,  when  the  Synod  of  Junca  had  sent  their 
deputies  to  Carthage  with  verbal  messages  (also  in  reference 
to  the  monastery  in  question).  In  this  letter  was  set  forth 
again  the  wrong  done  by  Liberatus,  and  the  principle  asserted 
that  the  monastery  whose  monks  were  born  in  all  parts  of 
Africa,  and  also  in  lands  beyond  the  sea,  should  not  be  sub- 
jected to  one  single  bishop,  nor  the  monks  be  treated  by  him 
as  though  they  were  his  own  clergy.  Besides,  Abbot  Peter 

SYNOD  AT  CARPENTRAS,  A.D.   527.  143 

brought  forward  two  passages  from  Augustine,  a  letter  of  the 
earlier  primate  of  the  province  of  Byzacene,  and  the  decree 
of  the  Synod  of  Aries  of  the  year  455  (on  the  dispute  about 
jurisdiction  between  Bishop  Theodore  of  Frej'us  and  Abbot 
Faustus  of  Le'rins)  in  proof  that  convents  of  monks  and  nuns 
were  not  subject  to  the  nearest  bishop,  but  had  been  free. 

Here  end  the  minutes  of  our  Synod :  the  rest  are  wanting, 
and  we  know  only,  in  addition,  from  a  Lombardian  Codex  in 
the  Vatican  Library,  that  this  decree  was  drawn  up :  That  all 
monasteries  for  the  future  shall,  as  hitherto,  a  conditione  cleri- 
corum  omnibus  modis,  be  free  and  independent.1  Some  notes 
on  the  close  of  our  Synod  are  also  given  by  the  universal 
Council  of  Carthage  of  A.D.  535.  See  below,  sec.  248. 

SEC.  239.  Synod  at  Carpentras,  A.D.  527. 

In  the  subscription  of  Archbishop  Caesarius  of  Aries,  the 
President  of  the  Synod  of  Carpentoractum  in  Grallia  Narbon- 
ensis,  this  assembly  is  expressly  ascribed  to  the  consulate  of 
Mavortius,  i.e.  to  the  year  527  A.D.  and  the  6th  of  November.2 
Mansi  (I.e.  p.  710)  conjectured  that  it  was  originally  put 
P.  C.  Mavortii,  i.e.  after  the  consulate  of  Mavortius,  and  then 
the  year  528  would  have  been  meant.  His  chief  reasons  are : 
(a)  The  Synod  of  Carpentras  ordained  that  in  the  following 
year,  again  on  November  6,  a  new  Synod  should  be  held  at 
Vaison.  Since  this  latter,  as  we  shall  see  further  on, 
decidedly  belongs  to  the  year  529,  that  of  Carpentras  must 
be  assigned  to  528.  (J)  Moreover,  in  the  year  528  the  6th 
of  November  fell  upon  a  Monday  (in  the  year  527,  on  the 
contrary,  as  we  add,  on  a  Saturday),3  and  it  was  the  ancient 
practice  to  open  Synods  on  a  Monday  and  not  on  a  Saturday 

1  Mansi,  t.  viii.  pp.  648-656  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  pp.  1082-1090.    The  expression 
"to  be  free  ab  omni  conditione  clericorum,"  is   translated  by  Remi   Ceillier 
(t.  xvi.  p.  679)  by  "  free  from  their  jurisdictions."    So  Richard,  Analysis  Con- 
di, t.  i.  p.  507. 

2  Mansi,  t.  viii.  pp.  708  and  709,  note  1  ;  Sinnond,  Concilia  Gallise,  t.  i.  pp. 
212  and  604  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1095. 

8  In  the  year  587,  Easter  fell  on  April  4,  so  that  November  6  was  a 
Saturday.  Cf.  Weidenbach,  Calendarium  Hist.-Christianum,  1855,  pp.  86 
and  41. 


(or  to  hold,  for  the  Synod  of  Carpentras  lasted  scarcely 
longer  than  one  day,  as  they  drew  up  only  one  canon). 

We  hold  these  arguments  to  be  lacking  in  force,  since  it 
was  in  no  way  the  universal  rule  to  open  Synods  on  a 
Monday ;  on  the  contrary,  the  ancient  ordinances  on  this 
point  fix  a  definite  day  of  the  month,  which  might  fall  upon 
the  most  different  days  of  the  week  (cf.  c.  7  of  the  Synod  of 
Macon,  A.D.  578).  Moreover,  we  must  not  forget  that  many 
ecclesiastical  assemblies  were  held,  not  at  the  time  originally 
fixed,  but  often  at  a  considerably  later  time ;  and  to  suppose 
that  this  was  the  case  at  the  Synod  of  Vaison  is  more  probable 
than  the  violent  altering  of  the  date  for  that  of  Carpentras. 

The  only  canon  of  this  Synod  has  reference  to  the  securing 
of  the  revenues  of  the  rural  churches,  in  opposition  to  the 
bishops.  In  this  canon  it  is  said :  A  complaint  has  been 
made,  that  some  bishops  give  up  to  the  parishes  only  little, 
or  nothing  at  all,  of  what  the  faithful  have  contributed 
to  them.  Therefore  it  is  decreed  :  If  the  church  in  the 
bishop's  city  is  sufficiently  endowed,  then  anything  which  has 
been  presented  to  the  parishes  must  be  expended  for  the 
clergy  who  serve  in  them,  or  for  the  repair  of  these  churches. 
If  however,  the  bishop's  church  has  too  slender  revenues,  then 
there  shall  be  left  for  the  rural  parishes  and  the  maintenance 
of  their  buildings  only  so  much  as  is  sufficient;  and  the 
bishop  may  appropriate  what  is  over  for  himself.  Only  he 
must  not  diminish  the  revenues  (facultatida) l  of  the  clergymen 
(in  the  parish)  or  the  service  of  the  church  (so  also  the 
number  of  the  clergy).  Finally,  it  was  decreed  that,  in  the 
following  year,  on  November  6,  a  Synod  should  again  be  held, 
and  at  Vaison. 

These  minutes  are  subscribed  by  sixteen  bishops, 
Caesarius  (of  Aries)  at  their  head,  almost  all  with  the  addition 
Peccator,  and  without  calling  themselves  bishops.  Besides, 
the  Synod  addressed  a  letter  to  Bishop  Agroecius  of  Antipolis 
(Antibes),  who  had  appeared  neither  personally  nor  by  a 
plenipotentiary,  although  he  had  been  required  to  give  an 
account  of  an  ordination  in  which  he  had  violated  the  third 
canon  of  the  recent  Synod  at  Aries  (sec.  237)  which  had  been 

1  Cf.  Du  Cange,  Glossar.  s.v.  facultaticula. 

SYNOD  AT  DOVIN,  IN   ARMENIA,  A.D.   527.  145 

subscribed  by  his  own  representative.  For  this  reason  he 
must  not  celebrate  Mass  for  a  year  in  accordance  with  the 
ordinance  of  Aries.  This  letter  was  also  subscribed  by  all 
the  sixteen  bishops,  this  time  with  the  addition  of  their  title, 
but  without  naming  their  sees.1 

SEC.  240.  Synod  at  Dovin,  in  Armenia,  A.D.  527. 

The  Theatine  Clemens  Galanus,  celebrated  for  his  pro- 
tracted missionary  activity  in  the  East,  as  well  as  for  his 
Historia  Armena  ecclesiastica  et  politico,  (1650),  in  this  work 
gives  an  account  of  an  Armenian  Synod  which  the  Catholicus 
Nerses  of  Aschtarag  held,  in  the  year  536,  with  ten  bishops 
in  the  Armenian  city  Thevin  (more  correctly  Dovin).  At 
this  Synod  the  doctrine  of  one  nature  in  Christ  was  declared ; 
the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  which  the  Armenians  hitherto 
had  recognised  was  rejected,  and  the  Armenian  schism 

This  relation  of  Galanus  was  followed  by  all  the  older 
scholars,  particularly  by  Pagi  (ad  ann.  535,  n.  13)  and  Mansi 
(t.  viii  p.  871),  until  the  famous  Armenian  national  history 
by  Tschamtschean  appeared  at  Venice  in  the  year  1785.  In 
the  second  volume  of  this  work  (p.  237  sqq.,  and  p.  527)  a 
very  complete  account  of  our  Synod  is  given,  and  a  quantity 
of  older  notices  relating  to  it  collected.  It  is  shown  that  the 
rejection  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  in  question  did  not 
proceed  from  this  Synod,  but  from  other  Armenian  Synods. 
So  early  as  the  year  491,  at  the  Synod  held  at  Walarschapat 
under  the  Catholicus  Babgen,  the  opposition  of  the  Armenians 
to  the  Chalcedonian  faith  had  begun ;  whilst  the  schism  was 
not  completed  until  the  year  596  by  a  later  Synod  at  Dovin 
under  the  Catholicus  Abraham.  Tschamtschean  also  removes 
our  Synod  to  the  year  527,  and  gives  us  the  substance  of 
thirty-eight  .canons  there  passed  : 2- 

1  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  708  sqq.;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.   p.  1095  sq. ;  Sirmond,   I.e.  ; 
Hixtoire  litttraire  de  la  France,  t.  iii.  p.  144. 

3  For  this  notice,  and  the  following  summary  of  the  thirty-eight  canons  on 
Dovin,  I  am  indebted  to  the  kindness  of  my  friend  Dr.  Welte,  and  the  notice  of 
the  Synod  of  Feyin  or  Foyin  (a  misprint  for  Devin  or  Dovin)  in  the  first  edition 
of  the  Kirchcrilexicmi  must  be  corrected  in  accordance  with  this  account. 
IV.  10 


1.  Gifts  for  priests  must  be  brought  into  the  church,  and 
not  into  the  house  of  any  priest. 

2.  The  priests  must  receive  these  gifts  and  presents  with- 
out selfishness  at  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass. 

3.  Church  property  must  not  be  given  out  on  interest. 

4.  Simony  is  forbidden,  and  a  layman  may  not  exercise 
ecclesiastical  functions. 

5.  Bigamous  servants  of  the  Church  are  to  be  deposed, 
and  must  receive  no  income  from  the  Church. 

6.  Priests   who    do   not    officiate    on   festivals   shall    be 
deprived  of  their  income  for  that  day. 

7.  Priests  must  not,  on  account  of  the  poverty  of  their 
Church,  lessen  the  communion  chalice. 

8.  Nor  must  they  use  new  wine  at  the  communion. 

9.  The    curtain  of  the  tabernacle  must  not  be  brought 
into  the  house  of  a  bride  or  a  bridegroom. 

10.  Priests  must  not  give  baptismal  water  to  other  people, 
especially  not  to  women,  for  the  baptism  of  children. 

11.  Among  priests  the  oldest  according  to  ordination  has 
the  precedence. 

12.  Without  a  priest  the  other  servants  of  the  Church 
must  not  celebrate  divine  service. 

13.  A  priest  must  not  wear  secular  clothes,  particularly 
not  the  clothes  of  a  soldier. 

1 4.  The  gifts  of  the  Church  shall  be  distributed  according 
to  a  rule.     Priests  shall  have  two  parts,  deacons  a  part  and  a 
half,  the  inferior  servants  of  the  Church  and  widows  (if  they 
are  needy)  one  part. 

15.  The  furniture  of  the  church  shall  be  preserved  by 
the  archpriest.     He  must  live  in  the  church. 

16.  Baptism  is  to  be  administered  in  the  church,  and 
only  in  case  of  necessity  in  the  house. 

17.  At    baptism,  married    women    may    not    assist    as 

1 8.  No  deacon  may  administer  baptism  without  necessity. 

19.  No  priest  must  receive  money  for  the  sacrament  of 

20.  A  priest  who  violates  the  secrecy  of  confession  must 
be  anathematised. 

SYNOD  AT  DOVIN,  IN  AEMENIA,  A.D.   527.  147 

21.  There  must  be  no  common  place  of  burial  in  the  church. 

22.  Priests  must  not  take  interest. 

23.  The  Agapse  destined  for  the  poor  may  not  be  given 
away  by  the  priests  at  their  pleasure,  but  must    be  divided 
immediately  among  the  poor  in  the  presence  of  the  givers. 

24.  No  one  must  partake  of  anything  before  communion  ; 
and  if  the  clergy  know  that  anyone  has  already  done  so,  he 
must  not  communicate  him. 

25.  Children  must  wear  no  garland.  (?) 

26.  A  virgin  and  a  widow  must  not  be  garlanded  together.(?) 

27.  Priests  must  not  at  their  own  pleasure  select  the 
cattle  which  shall  be  given  as  sacrifices  of  compassion  (for  the 
clergy  and  the  poor). 

28.  When  such  animals  are  presented,  the  priests  must 
not  keep  them  living,  but  must  slay  them,  and  divide  them 
among  the  poor. 

29.  Everyone  is  required  to  keep  the  Lenten  fast  and 
other  fasts. 

30.  On    the    great    Sabbath   of    the   kindling   of    lights 
(Saturday  in  Holy  Week)  no  one  must  communicate  before 
the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass.1 

31.  Laymen  must  not  put  forth  orders  in  opposition  to 
the  ordinances  of  the  priests. 

32.  No  priest  must  be  found  intoxicated  or  carousing; 
nor  may  he  have  a  female  slave  purchased  with  money,  and 
make  profit  by  her  prostitution. 

33.  No  woman  shall  visit  a  monastery  for  men,  either  to 
bake  bread  or  to  milk  the  cows,  or  for  any  kind  of  business 

34    Anchorites   must  return   to   their    cells    before   the 
setting  of  the  sun. 

35.  Monks  must  not  pass  the  night  in   the    houses  of 

1  Easter  Eve- is  called  the  Sabbath  of  the  kindling  of  lights,  because  on  this 
day  new  light  was  kindled  in  the  Church,  and  fire  and  tapers  were  consecrated. 
It  was  common  on  this  day  to  give  to  the  newly-baptized  catechumens  the 
communion  immediately  after  their  baptism  and  before  the  Mass — which  is  here 
forbidden.  Moreover,  since  the  Mass  on  Easter  Eve  was  celebrated  towards 
evening,  here  and  there  the  custom  might  creep  in,  that  many  should  com- 
municate before  Mass  ;  for  it  was  required  that  all  should  communicate  on  this 
day.  Of.  Binterim,  Denkwiirdigkeiten,  Bd.  v.  Thl.  i.  S.  225,  228. 


people  of  the  world,  but,  when  possible,  always  in  a  monastery  ; 
and  when  none  is  accessible,  with  the  archpriest  of  the  place. 

36.  Monks  must  not  carry  on  trades,  nor  keep  houses 
and  the  like. 

37.  No  one  shall  harbour  heretics  in  his  house. 

38.     In    every   month    there   shall   be   a   fast-day  on    a 

SEC.  241.  Second  Synod  of  Toledo,  A.D.  527  or  531. 

In  many  manuscripts  of  the  old  collections  of  canons  the 
Synodus  Toletana  II.  is  found  with  the  superscription :  Sub 
die  xvi.  Kalendas  Junias  anno  guinto  regni  domini  nostri 
Amalarici  regis  cera  565.  As  we  know,  the  Spanish  era 
begins  from  the  year  3  8  before  Christ ;  and  therefore  the 
year  565  of  this  chronology  is  identical  with  527  of  the 
Dionysian.  Baronius  (ad  ann.  531,  n.  12  sqq.)  and  Pagi 
(ad  ann.  531,  n.  9)  thought,  in  respect  to  this  matter  of  the 
era,  that  an  ancient  clerical  error  had  been  made  in  the  date 
of  the  Synod,  and  that  we  should  remove  it  to  531,  because 
in  the  superscription  the  fifth  year  of  King  Amalaric  is 
expressly  named.  From  this  they  assumed  that  the  regnant 
years  of  Amalaric  were  numbered  from  the  death  of  his 
grandfather  and  guardian ;  and  as  he,  the  East  Gothic  King 
Theoderic  the  Great,  died  in  the  year  526,  the  fifth  year  of 
Amalaric  could  be  no  other  than  531  of  our  era.  In  opposi- 
tion to  this  the  Spanish  scholars,  Aguirre,  Ferreras,  and 
Florez  thought  they  could  reconcile  the  two  statements  of 
the  superscription, — the  year  565  of  the  Spanish  era  and  the 
fifth  year  of  Amalaric, — since  Theoderic  the  Great  laid  down 
the  guardianship  of  his  grandson  in  the  year  523,  and  there- 
fore the  regnant  years  of  the  latter  must  have  been  counted 
from  523.1  In  this  case  his  fifth  year  agrees  with  our  year 
527.  I  have  no  doubt  that  this  suggestion  is  the  correct 
one,  and  that  the  second  Synod  of  Toledo  ought  accordingly 
to  be  assigned  to  May  17,  527;  but  one  of  the  principal 
reasons  which  the  Spanish  scholars  adduce  is,  in  my  judgment, 

1  Aguirre,  Concil.  Hisp.  t.  i.  p.  267  ;  Ferreras,  Hist,  of  Spain,  ii.  ;  Florez, 
Espana  Sagrada,  t.  ii.  p.  192,  and  t.  vi.  p.  130  sqq. 

SECOND  SYNOD   OF  TOLEDO,  A.D.   527   OR  631.  149 

quite  invalid.  In  order  to  show  that  in  Spain,  in  ancient 
times,  the  reign  of  Amalaric  was  actually  dated  from  the 
year  523,  they  appeal  to  Ildefonsus  of  Toledo,  who,  in  his 
treatise,  De  Scriptoribus  ecclesiasticis,  on  Archbishop  Montanus 
of  Toledo,  who  presided  over  our  Synod,  says :  "  He  ruled  the 
Church  of  Toledo  for  nine  years  (522-531)  under  King 
Amalaric."  Ildefonsus,  however,  says  only  :  "  He  was  famous 
in  the  time  of  Amalaric,  and  held  his  post  for  nine  years," l 
from  which  we  cannot  draw  their  conclusion. 

Entirely  without  foundation,  and  long  ago  refuted  by 
Pagi  (I.e.),  was  the  supposition  of  Baronius,  that  the  second 
Synod  of  Toledo  was  held,  not  under  Amalaric,  but  under 
his  successor  Theudis.  The  latter,  during  the  minority  of 
Amalaric,  was  raised  by  Theoderic  the  Great  to  be  Viceroy 
or  Governor  of  Spain,  and  early  showed  little  fidelity,  so  that, 
in  great  measure  from  dislike  to  him,  Theoderic  so  soon  laid 
down  his  guardianship.  Soon  Theudis  wanted  to  rise  higher. 
Amalaric  had  married  the  Prankish  Princess  Clothilde,  but 
persecuted  her  on  account  of  her  religion  to  such  an  extent 
that  her  brother,  the  Merovingian  King  Childebert  of  Paris 
(a  son  of  Chlodwig),  made  war  upon  his  brother-in-law. 
Amalaric  here  lost  his  life ;  and  as  he  died  childless,  the  West 
Goths  now  elected  Theudis  for  their  king.2  Immediately 
after  this  elevation  of  Theudis,  Baronius  thinks,  our  Synod 
was  held ;  but,  in  the  first  place,  the  accession  of  Theudis 
happened  in  the  year  532,3  and  besides,  King  Amalaric  is 
expressly  mentioned,  not  orly  in  the  superscription  of  the 
synodal  Acts,  but  also  in  the  text,  after  canon  5. 

There  were  present  at  Toledo,  under  the  presidency  of 
the  Metropolitan  Montanus,  seven  other  Spanish  bishops : 
Nebridius  of  Egara,  Justus  of  Urgelis,  Pangarius,  Cannonius, 
Paulus,  Domitian,  and  Maracinus.  The  sees  of  the  last  five  are 
unknown.  Of  Maracinus  it  is  added,  that  he  resided  at  Toledo 
as  an  exile.  By  whom  and  for  what  reason  he  was  banished 
is  not  said.  The  assembly  declared  the  permanent  validity  of 
the  older  Church  ordinances,  and  decreed  anew  as  follows : — 

1.  Those    who,    as    children,    were    dedicated    by    their 

1  In  Fabrieii  Bibliotheca  Eceles.  p.  62  (of  the  second  series  of  side  numbers). 
-  Ferreras,  I.e.  200  aud  208.  3  Fen-eras,  I.e.  216,  219. 


parents  to  the  clerical  office  shall,  soon  after  receiving  the 
tonsure,  or  after  admission  to  the  office  of  lector  (instead  of 
ministerio  electorum,  we  must  certainly  read  lectorum),  be 
instructed  by  one  set  over  them  in  a  building  belonging  to 
the  Church,  under  the  eyes  of  the  bishop.  If  they  have 
reached  the  age  of  eighteen,  the  bishop  should  ask  them 
whether  they  wish  to  marry.  If  they  choose  celibacy,  and 
vow  its  observance  then  shall  they  be  dedicated  to  the  sweet 
yoke  of  the  Lord,  at  twenty  years  of  age  as  subdeacons,  and, 
if  they  are  worthy,  as  deacons  after  the  completion  of  their 
twenty-fifth  year.  Yet  care  must  be  taken  that  they  do  not, 
unmindful  of  their  vow,  contract  matrimony,  or  practise 
secret  cohabitation.  If  they  do  this,  they  must,  as  guilty  of 
sacrilege,  be  excommunicated.  If,  however,  at  the  time  that 
the  bishop  asks  them  they  declare  their  intention  to  enter 
into  matrimony,  the  permission  granted  by  the  apostle  (1  Cor. 
vii.  2,  9)  shall  not  be  withheld  from  them.  If  in  more 
advanced  years  they,  as  married,  with  the  consent  of  the 
other  partner,  take  a  vow  of  abstinence  from  the  works  of 
the  flesh,  then  they  may  rise  to  the  sacred  offices. — Taken 
into  the  Corpus  jur.  can.  c.  5,  Dist.  xxviii. 

2.  If  anyone  is  thus  educated  from  his  youth  for  one 
church,  he  must  not  go  even  to  another,  and  no  strange 
bishop  must  receive  such  an  one. 

3.  No  cleric,  from  a  subdeacon  onwards,  may  live  along 
with  a  woman,  be  she  free,  freed,  or  a  slave.  Only  a  mother, 
or  a  sister,  or  a  near  relation  is  allowed  to  take  care  of  his 
house.  If  he  has  no  near  relation,  then  the  woman  who 
takes  care  of  the  house  must  live  in  another  house,  and 
under  no  pretext  enter  his  dwelling.  Whoever  acts  in 
opposition  to  this  shall  not  only  lose  his  clerical  office  and 
the  doors  of  the  church  be  closed,  but  he  shall  be  excluded 
from  the  communion  of  all  Catholics,  of  laymen  also,  even 
from  speech  with  them. 

4.  If  a  cleric  has  laid  out,  on  ground  belonging  to  the 
Church,  vineyards  or  small  fields  for  his  own  sustenance, 
he  may  retain  them  to  the  end  of  his  life,  but  then  they  fall 
to  the  Church ;  and  he  must  not  dispose  of  them  by  testament 
to  anyone,  unless  the  bishop  allows  it. 

SECOND  SYNOD  OF  TOLEDO,  A.D.   527   OR   531.  151 

5.  No  Christian  is  allowed  to  marry  a  blood-relation. 

At  the  close,  the  observance  of  these  canons  is  declared 
to  be  the  duty  even  of  those  bishops  of  the  province  who 
were  not  present.  Archbishop  Montanus  is  requested  to  give 
early  notice  of  each  new  Synod,  and  long  life  is  wished  to 
King  Amalaric.1 

As  a  kind  of  appendix  to  this  Synod,  the  Collections  of 
Councils  add  two  letters  of  Archbishop  Montanus.  The  first, 
addressed  to  the  faithful  of  the  district  of  Palentia,  blames 
the  priests  there,  that  they  ventured  themselves  to  consecrate 
the  chrism.  Such  encroachments  were  forbidden,  even  in  the 
Old  Testament,  and  it  was  ordained  by  the  synodal  canons 
that  the  parochienses  presbyteri  (this  expression  occurs  here 
for  the  first  time)  should  either  personally,  or  through  the 
Hectares  Sacrariorum?  but  not  through  less  important  persons, 
annually  request  the  chrism  from  the  bishop.  He  further 
complains  that  several  of  these  priests  had  invited  quite 
strange  bishops  for  the  consecration  of  churches,  and  that,  in 
word  and  deed,  they  had  supported  the  Priscillianist  heresy.3 

The  second  letter  of  Archbishop  Montanus  presents 
several  difficulties.4  That  Theoribius,  or  Turibius,  to  whom 
it  is  addressed,  was  a  distinguished  man,  is  clear  from  the 
titles  which  Montanus  gives  him  :  Domino  eximio  prcecipuoque 
Christicolce,  Domino  et  filio.  The  context  of  the  letter  also 
shows  that  formerly,  as  a  secular  person,  he  had  held  a  high 
office,  probably  that  of  governor,  and  in  this  position  he 
had,  in  his  district,  completely  put  down  the  still  existing 
heathenism,  and  also  had  greatly  weakened  the  Priscillianist 
sect,  on  which  account  Montanus  gives  him  praise.  Sub- 
sequently Turibius  abandoned  the  world,  as  is  indicated  by 
the  words  in  the  letter :  Gum  adhuc  floreres  in  seculo ;  and  as 
Ferreras,  in  his  History  of  Spain  (vol.  ii.  sec.  252  sqq.),  expressly 

1  Mansi,  t.-  viii.  p.  784  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1139  sqq. ;  Gonzalez,  Col- 
lection de  Canones  de  la  iglesia  Espaftola,  Madrid  1849,    t.  ii.  p.  202  sqq.  ; 
Gams,  Kirchengeschichte  von  Spanien,  1864,  Bd.  i.  S.  446  ff. 

2  The  Rector  Sacrarii  is  the  cleric  appointed  to  be  custos  of  the  church.     Cf. 
Du  Cange,  Olossar.  s.  v.  Sacrarium,  t.  vi.  p.  35. 

8  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  788  sqq.  ;  Hardouin,   t  ii.  p.  1142  ;  Gonzalez,  I.e.    p. 
208  sqq. ;  Gams,  I.e.  S.  449. 

4  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  790  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1144  ;  Gonzalez,  I.e.  p.  211  sq. 


asserts.  He  was  indeed  one  of  the  principal  promoters  of 
Monasticism  in  Spain,  and  founder  of  the  monastery  of  S. 
Toribio,  on  the  northern  coast  of  Spain,  in  the  province  of 
Burgos.  The  high  regard  in  which,  for  this  reason,  he  was 
held  procured  for  him  great  influence,  and  this  explains  how 
Archbishop  Montanus  should  call  upon  him  to  use  his  in- 
fluence, as  that  of  a  Severissimus  sacerdos,  in  order  to  put  a 
stop  to  the  irregularity  of  the  priests  in  Palentia  with  regard 
to  the  chrism.  Montanus  then  further  discusses,  in  an 
obscure  manner  not  quite  intelligible  to  us,1  the  second  point 
of  complaint  against  the  people  of  Palentia  in  regard  to  the 
calling  in  of  strange  bishops.  Turibius  seems  to  have  upheld 
this  irregularity,  on  which  account  Montanus  threatens  to 
bring  an  accusation  against  him  before  the  King  and  (the 
Governor)  Erganes.  This  last  part  of  the  letter  agrees  little 
with  the  courtesy  of  the  first  half. 

SEC.  242.  Second  Synod  at  Orange,  and  Synod  at 
Valence,  A.D.  529. 

One  of  the  most  important  Synods  of  the  sixth  century 
was  the  Arausicana  Secunda,  which  was  held  July  3,  529,  at 
Orange  (Arausio),  in  Southern  Gaul.  Occasion  for  it  was 
given  by  the  consecration  of  a  church  newly  built  at  Orange 
by  the  Praefectus  Prsetorio  for  Gaul,  liberius.  Under  the 
imitation  of  this  highly  distinguished  man,  Archbishop 
Caesarius  of  Aries,  and  the  Bishops  Julian,  Constantius, 
Cyprian,  Eucherius,  a  second  Eucherius,  Heraclius,  Prin- 
cipius,  Philagrius,  Maximus,  Prsetextatus,  Alethius,  Luper- 
cianus,  and  Vindemialis  assembled  at  Orange.  The  sees  of 
these  fourteen  bishops  are  not  mentioned.  Csesarius,  who 
first  subscribed  the  minutes,  added  to  his  subscription  the 
following  chronological  note :  Decio  Juniore  V.  C.  Consule. 
This  points  to  the  year  529,  and  shows  that  Baronius  and 
many  of  the  older  scholars  had  been  quite  mistaken  in  re- 
moving our  Synod  to  the  times  of  Leo  the  Great.2  At  that 

1  Cf.  Gams,  I.e.  S.  450  sq. 

2  Cf.  Noris,  Historia  Pelagiaiut,  lib.  ii.  c.  33  ;  Sirmond,   Condi.  Oallise,  t. 
i.  p.  605  :  and  the  notes  of  Binius  in  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  720. 

SYNODS  AT  ORANGE  AND  VALENCE,  A.D.    529.  153 

time,  as  we  know,  Hilary  occupied  the  see  of  Aries,  and 
Csesarius  was  not  yet  born. 

The  inaccuracy  of  that  earlier  assertion  is  plain  from  this, 
that  the  Praetorian  Prefect  Liberius  founded  the  new  church 
at  Orange,  and  joined  in  subscribing  the  minutes  of  the 
Synod.  This  man  also  belongs  to  the  sixth  century,  and  was 
appointed  by  the  East  Gothic  King  Theoderic  the  Great  as 
his  Viceroy  over  the  most  recently  annexed  parts  of  Gallia 
Narbonensis.1  He  discharged  his  office  also  under  Theoderic's 
successor  and  grandson  Amalaric,  and  to  his  kingdom  Orange 
belonged  at  the  time  of  our  Synod.  Felix  iv.  at  that  time 
sat  on  the  papal  throne.  In  the  preface  to  the  minutes  the 
bishops  state  that  they  had  assembled  into  a  Synod  on  the 
occasion  of  the  consecration  of  that  church ;  and  that,  on 
account  of  those  who  did  not  think  rightly  on  the  subject  of 
grace  and  free  will  (the  Semipelagians),  at  the  exhortation  of 
the  apostolic  see  they  had  received  and  subscribed  some 
Capitula  sent  to  them  by  this  see.  These  were  collected 
from  the  books  of  the  holy  Fathers,  and  were  quite  adopted 
for  the  instruction  of  the  erring.  Therefore  it  was  necessary 
that  those  who  hitherto  had  not  had  the  true  faith  respecting 
grace  and  free  will  should,  after  the  perusal  of  these  Capitula, 
turn  their  heart  to  the  Catholic  faith.2 

Archbishop  Cresarius  of  Aries,  like  Faustus  of  Eiez  and 
other  Semipelagians,  had  been  formerly  a  monk  in  the 
monastery  at  Le'rins ;  but  he  held  it  for  his  sacred  duty  to 
oppose  the  Semipelagian  heresy,  which  extended  more  and 
more  after  the  death  of  Faustus  (493);  therefore  he  wrote, 
for  the  defence  of  the  Augustinian  doctrine,  his  once  famous 
work,  De  Gratia  et  libero  Arbitrio,  a  refutation  of  the  work 
of  Faustus  with  the  same  title.  Pope  Felix  iv.  commended 
the  work  of  Caesarius  in  a  special  brief,  and  endeavoured 
to  circulate  it.  In  spite  of  this  it  is  lost.3  Caesarius  also 
acquainted  the  Pope  with  the  doings  of  the  Semipelagians 

1  See  above,  sec.  237  ;  and  Sirroond,  Condi.  GaZlise,  t.  i.  p.  604,  in  the  notes 
to  the  fourth  Synod  of  Aries  ;  cf.  the  notes  b  and  c  of  Binius,  in  Mansi,  t.  viii. 
p.  720. 

-  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  712  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1007. 

3  Noris,  Hist.  Pelag.  lib.  ii.  c.  22. 


in  Gaul,  and  asked  him  for  his  assistance  in  suppressing  the 
error.  In  his  answer  Pope  Felix  iv.  sent  him  a  number  of 
Capitula,  which  were  borrowed,  some  more,  some  less,  literally 
from  the  writings  of  Augustine  (and  partly  also  of  Prosper) ; 
but  which  were  characterised  by  the  Synod  in  the  Praefatio 
as  propositions  of  the  antiqui  patres,  because  Leo  I.,  Pope 
Gelasius,  Prosper  of  Aquitaine,  and  others  had  put  forth  the 
same  statements  and  propositions  as  Augustine,  often  with 
literal  uniformity.1 

From  what  books  of  Augustine  the  particular  Capitula  of 
our  Synod  were  taken,  is  a  question  which  has  been  examined 
with  great  industry  by  Binius  and  others,  particularly  the 
monks  of  S.  Maur  in  their  edition  of  S.  Augustine  (where 
they  have  also  in  vol.  x.  printed  the  Capitula  of  Orange).  In 
almost  all  cases  they  have  found  the  passages.2  In  the  minutes 
of  our  Synod  twenty-five  such  Capitula  are  found ;  it  must, 
however,  remain  undecided  whether  the  whole  of  these  in 
their  completeness  had  come  from  Borne,  or  whether  the 
Synod  may  have  omitted  anything,  or  added  anything  of  its 
own.  A  Codex,  formerly  belonging  to  the  Benedictine 
monastery  of  S.  Maximus  at  Trier,  contains  nineteen 
Capitula  Sancti  Augustini  professing  to  be  sent  from  Eome, 
which  are  generally  identical  with  those  of  Orange,  and  may 
possibly  be  a  copy  of  the  original  which  came  from  Eome.3 

The  high  importance  of  the  Chapters  of  Orange  makes  it  de- 
sirable to  append  the  original  Latin  text  to  the  outline  of  the 
contents  of  each  number.  This  is  done  in  Sirmond,  Concilia 
Gallic?-,  t.  i.  p.  216  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1098  sqq. ;  Mansi,  t. 

1  Noris,  I.e.  ii.  c.  23. 

2  In  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  721,  and  Hardouin  (t.  ii.  p.  1098  sqq.  in  the  margin),  as 
well  as  in  the  Benedictine  edition  of  S.  Augustine,  the  passages  in  question  from 
S.  Augustine,  and  from  the  sentences  of  Augustine  collected  by  Prosper,  are  often 
given  incorrectly.     A  more  accurate  reference  is  here  added  to  each  Capitulum. 
The  Ballerini  maintain,  in  their  edition  of  the  Works  of  Cardinal  Norris  (t.  iv. 
p.  889),  that  eight  chapters  of  Orange  are  taken  from  the  Epistle  of  Augustine 
to  Vitalis,  more  exactly  from  the  12  Sententise  contra  Pelagianos  contained  in  it 
(Epist.  217,  c.  5.     Earlier,  Epist.  107,  in  Migne,  t.  ii.  p.  984).     But  between  the 
one  and  the  other  there  is  no  such  literal  agreement  as  between  other  passages 
of  Augustine  and  the  Synod  of  Orange. 

3  Reprinted  in  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  722  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1102.     Cf.  the 
Obscrvatio  Philippi  Labbei  in  Mansi,  I.e. 

SYNODS  AT  ORANGE  AND  VALENCE,  A.D.  529.      155 

viii.  p.  712  sqq. :  Bruns,  Bibliotheca  Ecclesiastica,  vol.  i.  pt.  ii. 
p.  177  sqq.;  and  in  the  tenth  volume  of  the  Benedictine 
edition  of  St.  Augustine,  ed.  Migne,  t.  x.  p.  1785  sqq.,  and 
ed.  Gaume,  t.  x.  p.  2447  sqq. 

It  is  further  to  be  remarked  that  the  Council  of  Trent  made 
large  use  of  the  canons  of  Orange  in  its  canons  De  Justificatione. 

1.  The  sin  of  Adam  has  injured  not  only  the  body,  but  also 
the  soul  of  man. 

Si  quis  per  offensam  praevaricationis  Adse  non  totium,  id  est 
secundum  corpus  et  animam,  in  deterius  dicit  hominem  commu- 
tatum,  sed  animae  libertate  illaesa  durante  corpus  tantummodo 
corruptioni  credit  obnoxium,  Pelagii  errore  deceptus  adversatur 
Scripture  dicenti :  Anima  quce  peccaverit  ipsa  morietur  (Ezech. 
xviii.  20)  ;  et :  Nescitis  quoniam  cui  exhibetis  vos  servos  ad  obedi- 
endum,  servi  estis  ejus  cui  dbeditis  ?  (Eom.  vi.  1 6)  ;  et :  A  quo 
quis  superatur,  ejus  et  servus  addicitur  (2  Pet.  ii.  19). 

The  like  is  found  in  Augustine,  De  Nuptiis  et  Concupis- 
centia,  lib.  ii.  c.  34;  ed.  Migne,  t.  x.  p.  471. 

2.  The  sin  of  Adam  has  injured  not  only  himself  but  his 
posterity ;  and  not  merely  the  death  of  the  body,  but  also  sin, 
the  death  of  the  soul,  has  by  one  man  come  into  the  world. 

Si  quis  soli  Adas  praevaricationem  suam,  non  et  ejus  pro- 
pagini  asserit  nocuisse,  aut  certe  mortem  tantum  corporis,  quse 
poena  peccati  est,  non  autem  et  peccatum  quod  mors  est 
animse,  per  unuin  hominem  in  omne  genus  humanum  trans- 
iisse  testatur,  injustitiam  Deo  dabit,  contradicens  apostolo 
dicenti :  Per  unum  hominem  peccatum  intravit  in  mundum  et 
per  peccatum  mors,  et  ita  in  omnes  homines  mors  pertransit,  in 
quo  omnes  peccaverunt  (Eom.  v.  12). 

The  like  is  taught  by  Augustine,  Contra  duos  epistolas 
Pelagianorum,  lib.  iv.  c.  4 ;  ed.  Migne,  x.  6 1 2  sqq. 

3.  Grace  is  not  only  granted  when  we  pray  for  it,  but 
grace  itself  works  in  us  to  pray  for  it. 

Si  quis  ad  invocationem  humanam  gratiam  Dei  dicit 
posse  conferri,  non  autem  ipsam  gratiam  facere  ut  invocetur 
a  nobis,  contradicit  Isaiae  prophetse  vel  apostolo  idem  dicenti : 
Inventus  sum  a  non  qucerentibus  me ;  palam  apparui  his  qui 
me  non  interrogabant  (Isa.  Ixv.  1  ;  Eom.  x.  20). 

4.  God  does  not  wait  for  our  desire  to  be  cleansed  from 


sin,  but  HE  works  this  desire  in  us  Himself  by  means  of  His 
Spirit  (cf.  Kuhn,  "  The  Natural  and  the  Supernatural,"  in  the 
Tubing.  'Theol.  Quartalschrift,  1864,  S.  293  sq.). 

Si  quis  ut  a  peccato  purgemur  voluntatem  nostram  Deum 
exspectare  contendit,  non  autem  ut  etiam  purgari  velimus,  per 
Sancti  Spiritus  infusionem  et  operationem  in  nos  fieri  confite- 
tur,  resistit  ipsi  Spiritui  Sancto  per  Salomonem  dicenti : 
Prceparatur  wluntas  a  Domino}  et  Apostolo  salubriter  pnedi- 
canti:  Dem  est  qui  operatur  in  wbis  et  velle  et  perficere  pro 
bona  voluntate  (Phil.  ii.  13). 

5.  As  the  growth,  so  also  the  beginning  of  faith,  the  dis- 
position for  faith,  is  wrought  by  grace,  and  is  not  in  us  by 
nature.     Were  this  faith  naturally  in  us,  then  all  who  are 

\not  Christians  would  necessarily  be  believers. 

Si  quis  sicut  augmentum,  ita  etiam  initium  fidei  ipsumque 
credulitatis  affectum,  quo  in  eum  credimus  qui  justificat 
impium,  et  ad  generationem  sacri  baptismatis  pervenimus, 
non  per  gratise  donum,  id  est  per  inspirationem  Spiritus 
Sancti  corrigentem  voluntatem  nostram  ab  infidelitate  ad 
fidem,  ab  impietate  ad  pietatem,  sed  naturaliter  nobis  inesse 
dicit,  apostolicis  dogmatibus  adversarius  approbatur,  beato 
raulo  dicenti :  Confidimus  quia  qui  ccepit  in  vobis  bonum  opus, 
verficiet  usque  in  diem  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi  (Phil.  i.  6) ; 
et  illud :  Vobis  datum  est  pro  Christo  non  solum  ut  in  Eum 
credatis,  sed  etiam  ut  pro  Illo  patiamini  (Phil.  i.  29);  et: 
Gratia  salm  facti  esti  per  fidem,  et  hoc  non  ex  vobis ;  Dei 
enim  donum  est  (Eph.  ii.  8).  Qui  enim  fidem  qua  in  Deum 
credimus  dicunt  esse  naturalem,  omnes  eos  qui  ab  Ecclesia 
Christi  alieni  sunt,  quodammodo  fideles  esse  definiunt. 

This  is  the  principal  content  of  cc.  1—9  of  Augustine's 
treatise,  De  Prcedestinat.  Sanctorum,  ed.  Migne,  t.  x.  p.  9  5  9  sqq. 

6.  It    is    not    correct  to  say  that   the   divine  mercy  is 
imparted  to  us  when  we  (by  our  own  strength)  believe,  knock, 
etc.     Rather  it  is  divine  grace  which  works  in  us,  so  that  we 
believe,  knock,  etc.     Grace   not  merely  helps  the  humility 
and  obedience  of  man,  but  it  is  the  gift  of  grace  that  he  is 

\    humble  and  obedient. 

1  Prov.  viii.  35.     According  to  the  text  of  the  LXX. :  *«<  \n>iu.aZ,iTKi  fi^nns 
•jrupa,  xupitv.     The  Hebrew  and  the  Vulgate  give  quite  a  different  meaning. 

SYNODS  AT  ORANGE  AND  VALENCE,  A.D.  529.      157 

Si  quis  sine  gratia  Dei  credentibus,  volentibus,  desider- 
antibus,  conantibus,  laborautibus,  vigilantibus,  studentibus, 
potentibus,  quaerentibus,  pulsantibus  nobis  misericordiam 
dicit  conferri  divinitus,  non  autem  ut  credamus,  velimus  vel 
haec  omnia  sicut  oportet  agere  valeamus,  per  infusionem  et 
inspirationem  Sancti  Spiritus  in  nobis  fieri  confitetur,  et  aut 
humilitati  aut  obedientiae  humanae  subjungit  gratiae  adjutorium, 
nee  ut  obedientes  et  humiles  simus  ipsius  gratiae  donum  esse 
consentit,  resistit  apostolo  dicenti:  Quid  habes  quod  non 
accepisti  ?  et :  Gratia  Dei  sum  quod  sum  (1  Cor.  iv.  7). 

Of.  Augustine,  De  Dono  Perseverantice,  c.  23,  n.  64,  ed. 
Migne,  t.  x.  p.  1302  ;  and  Prosper,  Contra  Collatorem,  c.  2,  n. 
6  (ib.  p.  1804). 

7.  Without  grace,  and  merely  from  natural  powers,  we 
can  do  nothing  which  belongs  to  eternal  salvation ;  neither 
think  nor  will  in  a  proper  manner  (ut  expedit),  nor  consent  to 
the  preaching  of  the  gospel. 

Si  quis  per  naturae  vigorem  bonum  aliquid,  quod  ad 
salutem  pertinet  vitas  eternae,  cogitare  ut  expedit  aut  eligere, 
sive  salutari,  id  est,  evangelicae  praedicationi  consentire  posse 
confirmat  absque  illuminatione  et  inspiratione  Spiritus  Sancti, 
qui  dat  omnibus  suavitatem  in  consentiendo  et  credendo  veri- 
tati,  haeretico  fallitur  spiritu,  non  intelligens  vocem  Dei  in 
evangelic  dicentis  :  Sine  me  nihil  potestis  facere  (Joann.  xv.  5), 
et  illud  Apostoli :  Non  quod  idonei  simus  cogitare  aliquid  a  nobis, 
quasi  ex  nobis,  sed  sufficientia  nostra  ex  Deo  est  (2  Cor.  iii.  5). 

Cf.  Augustine,  De  Gratia  Christi,  lib.  L  c.  26 ;  ed. 
Migne,  t.  x.  p.  374. 

8.  It  is  not  correct  to  say  that  some  attain  to  the  grace 
of  baptism  by  the  mercy  of  God,  others  by  their  own  free 
will,  which  was  weakened  by  Adam's  sin. 

Si  quis  alios  misericordia,  alios  vero  per  liberum  arbitrium, 
quod  in  omnibus  qui  de  praevaricatione  primi  hominis  nati 
sunt  constat-  esse  vitium,  ad  gratiam  baptismi  posse  venire 
contendit,  a  recta  fide  probatur  alienus.  Is  enim  non l  omnium 

1  In  Mansi  and  Hardouin  non  is  lacking,  whilst  Sirmond  found  it  in  his 
MSS.  The  connection  demands  the  negative,  as  the  following  sentence  shows 
that  it  is  the  Semipelagian  error  and  not  the  Church  doctrine  which  is  here  in 


liberum  arbitrium  per  peccatum  primi  hominis  infirmatum, 
aut  certe  ita  laesum  putat,  ut  tamen  quidam  valeant  sine 
revelatione  Dei  mysterium  salutis  seternae  per  semetipsos  posse 
conquirere.  Quod  quam  sit  contrarium  ipse  Dominus  probat, 
qui  non  aliquos,  sed  neminem  ad  se  posse  venire  testatur  nisi 
quern  Pater  attraxerit  (Joann.  vi.  44),  sicut  et  Petro  dicit : 
Beatus  es,  Simon  JBarjona,  quid,  caro  et  sanguis  non  revelavit  tibi, 
sed  Pater  meus  qui  in  codis  est  (Matt.  xvi.  17) ;  et  Apostolus : 
Nemo  potest  dicere  Dominum  Jesum  nisi  in  Spiritu  Sancto 
(I  Cor.  xii.  3). 

The  like  is  found  in  Prosper,  Contra  Collatorem,  c.  5,  n. 
13  ;  c.  13,  n.  38  ;  and  c.  19,  n.  55,  in  the  Responsrio  to  the 
sixth  Definition  of  Cassian  (in  Migne's  ed.  of  S.  Augustine's 
Works,  t.  x.  pp.  1807,  1818,  and  1829). 

9.  All  good  thoughts  and  works  are  the  gift  of  God.1 
Divini    est    muneris   cum    et    recte  cogitamus,  et  pedes 

nostros  a  falsitate  et  injustitia  continemus ;  quoties  enim 
bona  agimus,  Deus  in  nobis  atque  nobiscum  ut  operemur 

This  is  verbally  identical  with  the  twenty-second  Sen- 
tentia  in  S.  Prosperi  Sententice  ex  Augustino  delibatce,  in  the 
Works  of  St.  Augustine,  ed.  Migne,  t.  x.  p.  1861. 

10.  Even  the  saints  need  divine  aid. 

Adjutorium  Dei  etiam  renatis  ac  sanctis  semper  est 
implorandum,  ut  ad  finem  bonum  pervenire  vel  in  bono 
possint  opere  perdurare. 

Prosper  maintains  the  like  against  Cassian  in  his  treatise 
Contra  Collatorem,  c.  11,  n.  31—36,  especially  n.  34;  Migne, 
Opp.  S.  Augustini,  t.  x.  p.  1815  sqq. 

11.  We  can  vow  nothing  to  God  but  what  we  have  first 
received  from  Him. 

Nemo  quidquam  Domino  recte  voveret,  nisi  ab  Ipso 
acciperet  quod  voveret,  sicut  legitur:  Quce  de  manu  tua 
accepimus  damus  Tibi  (1  Chron.  xxx.  14). 

Taken  from  Augustine,  De  Civ.  Dei,  lib.  xvii.  c.  4,  n.  7 
(ed.  Migne,  t.  vii.  p.  530),  and  forms  the  54th  sentence  in 
Prosper,  see  above,  c.  9. 

1  From  c.  9  onwards  the  numbers  have  no  longer  the  form  of  canons,  but  of 

SYNODS  AT  ORANGE  AND  VALENCE,  A.D.  529.      159 

12.  What  in  us  is  loved  by  God  is  God's  own  gift. 
Tales  nos  amat  Deus,  quales  futuri  sumus  Ipsius  dono, 

non  quales  sumus  nostro  merito. 

This  is  the  56th  Sentence  in  Prosper.     See  c.  9. 

13.  The  free  will  weakened  in  Adam  is  restored  only  by 
the  grace  of  baptism. 

Arbitrium  voluntatis  in  primo  homine  infirmatum  nisi 
per  gratiam  baptismi  non  potest  reparari ;  quod  amissum,  nisi 
a  quo  potuit  dari,  non  potest  reddi,  unde  Veritas  ipsa  dicit : 
Si  vos  filius  liberaverit,  tune  vere  liberi  eritis  (Joann.  viii.  36). 

Taken  from  Augustine,  De  Civ.  Dei,  lib.  xiv.  cc.  1 1 ,  n.  1 
(ed.  Migne,  t.  vii.  p.  418).  It  is  also  the  152nd  Sentence 
in  Prosper.  Cf.  c.  9. 

14.  One  who  is  unhappy  can  be  delivered  from  his  misery 
only  by  prevenient  divine  grace. 

Nullus  miser  de  quacumque  miseria  liberatur,  nisi  qui 
Dei  misericordia  prsevenitur,  sicut  dicit  Psalmista :  Cito  anti- 
cipent  nos  misericordice  Tuce,  Domine  (Ps.  Ixxviii.  8)  ;  et  illud  : 
Deus  meus,  misericordia  Ejus  prcevenient  me  (Ps.  Iviii.  11). 

The  211th  Sentence  in  Prosper. 

15.  The    condition    of    Adam    appointed    by    God    was 
changed  by  sin :  the  condition  of  man  brought  about  by  sin 
is  changed  in  the  faithful  by  the  grace  of  God. 

Ab  eo,  quod  formavit  Deus,  mutatus  est  Adam,  sed  in 
pejus  per  iniquitatem  suam  ;  ab  eo,  quod  operata  est  iniquitas, 
mutatur  fidelis,  sed  in  melius  per  gratiam  Dei.  Ilia  ergo 
mutatio  fuit  praevaricatoris  primi,  hsec  secundum  psalmistam 
Mutatio  est  dexterce  excelsi  (Ps.  ixxvi.  11). 

From  Augustine,  Enarratio  in  Ps.  Ixviii.  Sermo  i.  n.  2  (ed. 
Migne,  t.  iv.  p.  841).  It  is  also  the  225th  Sentence  in  Prosper. 

16.  All  that  we  have  is  the  gift  of  God.     If  anyone 
fails  to  recognise  in  any  good,  that  he  has  it  from  God,  either 
he  has  it  not,  or  it  will  be  taken  from  him. 

Nemo  ex-  eo,  quod  videtur  habere,  glorietur  tanquam  non 
acceperit,  aut  ideo  se  putet  accepisse,  quia  litera  extrinsecus 
vel  ut  legeretur  apparuit,  vel  ut  audiretur  sonuit.  Nam 
sicut  Apostolus  dicit :  Si  per  legem  justitia,  ergo  Christus  gratis 
mortuus  est  (Gal.  ii.  11).  Ascendens  in  altum  captivam  duarit 
captivitatem,  dedit  dona  hominibus  (Eph.  iv.  8).  Inde  habet 


quicunque  habet ;  quisquis  auteni  se  inde  habere  negat,  aut 
vere  non  habet,  aut  id  quod  habet  aufertur  ab  eo. 

Taken  from  Augustine,  De  Spiritu  et  Litera,  c.  29  (Binius, 
Hardouin,  and  the  Benedictines  give  by  mistake  c.  28), 
ed.  Migne,  t.  x.  p.  231.  It  is  also  the  259th  Sentence  in 

17.  That   which  makes  the  heathen  strong   is   worldly 
desire ;  that  which   makes   Christians  strong  is  the  love  of 
God  shed  abroad  in  our  hearts  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Fortitudinem  gentilium  mundana  cupiditas,  fortitudinem 
autem  Christianorum  Dei  caritas  facit,  quae  diffusa  est  in 
cordibus  nostris  non  per  voluntatis  arbitrium  quod  est  a 
uobis,  sed  per  Spiritum  Sanctum  qui  datus  est  nobis. 

From  Augustine,  Op.  Imp.  contra  Julianum,  lib.  i. 
c.  83  (ed.  Migne,  t.  x.  p.  1104).  It  is  also  the  295th 
Sentence  in  Prosper. 

18.  Unmerited  grace   goes  before  the  most  meritorious 

Nullis  meritis  gratiam  praevenientibus,  debetur  merces 
bonis  operibus,  si  fiant ;  sed  gratia  quae  non  debetur  praecedit 
ut  fiant. 

From  Augustine,  Op.  Imp.  contra  Julianum,  lib.  i.  c.  133 
(ed.  Migne,  t.  x.  p.  1133).  The  297th  Sentence  in  Prosper. 

19.  Even   if    human   nature  had   still   the   integrity  in 
which  it  was  created,  it  yet  could  not  preserve  itself  without 
the  aid  of  the  Creator.     If,  however,  it  is   unable  without 
grace  to  preserve  the  safety  which  it  has  obtained,  much  less 
can  it  regain  that  which  was  lost. 

Natura  humana,  etiamsi  in  ilia  integritate,  in  qua  est 
condita,  permaneret,  nullo  modo  seipsam,  creatore  suo  non 
adjuvante,  servaret ;  unde  cum  sine  Dei  gratia  non  possit 
custodire  quam  accepit,  quomo  sine  Dei  gratia  poterit  reparare 
quod  perdidit  ? 

From  Augustine,  Epist.  186,  c.  11,  n.  37  (formerly 
Epist.  106,  11).  The  308th  Sentence  in  Prosper. 

20.  God  works  much  good  in  man  which   man  does  not 
work ;  but  man  works  no  good  the  performance  of  which  God 
does  not  enable  him  to  do. 

Multa  Deus  facit  in  homine  bona,  quae  non  facit  homo ; 

SYNODS  AT  OKANGE  AND  VALENCE,  A.D.  529.      161 

nulla  vero  facit  homo  bona,  quse  non  Deus  praestat  ut  faciat 

From  Augustine's  treatise,  Contra  duos  Epistolas  Pelagian- 
orum,  lib.  ii.  c.  9  (not  8,  as  the  Benedictines  say  by  mistake), 
n.  31  (ed.  Migne,  t.  x.  p.  586).  The  312th  Sentence  in 

21.  The  law  does  not  justify,  and  grace  does  not  consist, 
as  some  maintain,  in  the  natural  dispositions  of  man.     The 
law  was  there,  and  did  not  justify ;  nature  was  there,  and  did 
not  justify.     But  Christ  has  died  to  fulfil  the  law,  and  to 
restore  the  nature  which  was  ruined  through  Adam. 

Sicut  iis,  qui  volentes  in  lege  justificari  et  a  gratia  exci- 
derunt,  verissime  dicit  apostolus :  Si  ex  lege  justitia  est,  ergo 
Christus  gratis  mortuus  est  (Gal.  ii.  31);  sic  iis  qui  gratiam, 
quam  commendat  et  percipit  fides  Christi,  putant  esse 
naturam,  verissime  dicitur :  Si  per  naturam  justitia  est,  ergo 
Christus  gratis  mortuus  est.  Jam  hie  enim  erat  lex,  et  non 
justificabat ;  jam  hie  erat  et  natura,  et  non  justificabat.  Ideo 
Christus  non  gratis  mortuus  est,  ut  et  lex  per  ilium  impleretur 
qui  dixit:  Non  mm  legem  solvere,  sed  adimplere  (Matt.  v.  17); 
et  natura  per  Adam  perdita  per  ilium  repararetur,  qui  dixit 
venisse  se,  quserere  et  salvare  quod  perierat. 

Taken  from  Augustine,  De  gratia  et  libero  arbitrio, 
c.  13  (ed.  Migne,  t.  x.  p.  896).  The  315th  Sentence  in 

22.  That  which   man  has  of  his  own  is  only  falsehood 
and  sin.     What  he  possesses  in  truth  and  righteousness  he 
has  from  God. 

Nemo  habet  de  suo  nisi  mendacium  et  peccatum ;  si  quid 
autem  habet  homo  veritatis  atque  justitise,  ab  illo  fonte  est, 
quern  debemus  sitire  in  hac  eremo,  ut  ex  eo  quasi  guttis 
quibusdam  irrorati  non  deficiamus  in  via. 

From  Augustine,  Tractat.  V.  in  Joann.  n.  1  (Migne,  t.  iii. 
p.  1414).  The  323rd  Sentence  in  Prosper.  This  Capitulum 
seems,  at  first  sight,  to  be  identical  with  the  propositions  of 
Bajus,  rejected  by  Pius  v.  and  Gregory  XIIL,  No.  25  :  Omnia 
opera  infidelium  sunt  peccata  et  philosophorum  virtutes  sunt 
vitia,  and  No.  27  :  liberum  arbitrium  sine  gratiee  Dei  adju- 
toria  nonnisi  ad  peccandum  valet.  The  Capitulum  22  of  our 

IV.  II 


Synod,  together  with  the  similar  statements  of  Augustine  and 
Prosper,  has  therefore  become  a  real  crux  of  the  theologians, 
and  for  centuries  not  a  few  have  exercised  much  acuteness  in 
reconciling  the  statement  of  Augustine  and  of  our  Synod  with 
the  dogma :  that  even  in  fallen  man  freedom  to  do  good  is 
not  entirely  annihilated,  and  that  there  is  a  twofold  moral 
good,  the  natural  and  the  supernatural.  All  these  attempts 
have  been  set  forth  and  criticised  of  late  by  Johann  Ernst 
in  his  treatise  on  "  the  works  and  virtues  of  the  unbelieving 
according  to  S.  Augustine  (with  an  Appendix  on  canon  22 
of  Arausicanum  II.),  Freiburg:  Herder,  1871." 

One  of  the  most  admissible  hypothesis  devised  by  Eipalda, 
approved  by  Klentgen,  Berlage,  Schwan,  and  others,  goes 
thus :  "  There  are  in  the  present  state  of  the  world  only  two 
kinds  of  human  works,  the  morally  bad  and  the  supernatur- 
ally  good.  Naturally  good  works,  which  certainly  might  lie 
between  these,  there  are  none,  as  the  natural  moral  powers  of 
man  are  never  left  by  God  Himself,  but  in  every  moral 
activity  are  supported  by  God's  grace.  Where,  then,  the 
natural  powers  (the  Suum,  as  the  Synod  says)  alone  of  man 
are  in  play,  then  the  product  is  the  opposite  of  morality, 
namely,  sin  and  falsehood."  Ernst,  however,  rejects  also  this 
manner  of  explanation,  and  understands  the  statement  of 
Augustine  and  of  the  Synod  in  the  following  manner :  "  God 
has  placed  before  man  a  supernatural  goal,  eternal  blessedness. 
By  the  sin  of  Adam  man  is  deprived  of  this  destiny  and  gift 
which  had  been  willed  by  God,  died  to  it,  and  therefore 
nothing  which  fallen  man  can  now  accomplish  in  moral 
relation  can  have  any  real  value  before  God"  (p.  225),  that 
is,  it  cannot  gain  for  man  eternal  blessedness.  These  so-called 
naturally  good  works  of  the  infideles,  which  are  ineffectual  for 
blessedness,  are  designated  by  Augustine  and  our  Synod  as 
peccata,  and  we  can  only  ask  whether  these  are  merely  peccata 
materialia  (ob  defectum  ordinis  in  finem  debitum  et  6b  carentiam 
perfectionis  debitce),  and  such  as  could  not  be  reckoned  to  the 
injideles  as  involving  guilt,  or  whether  Augustine  and  our 
Synod  ascribed  to  them  a  real  character  of  guilt,  and  regarded 
them  as  peccata  in  the  full  sense  of  the  word.  The  former 
view  is  taken  by  Passaglia  and  Hunter,  the  latter  by  Ernst, 

SYNODS  AT  ORANGE  AND  VALENCE,  A.D.  529.      163 

on  the  ground  that  God  makes  it  possible  for  everyone  to 
give  a  higher  character  to  his  moral  endeavours,  and  to 
impress  upon  them  the  stamp  of  the  higher  supernatural 
morality,  which,  however,  the  infideles  do  not  will.  (See 
Ernst,  I.e.  S.  130,  197-201,  and  215.) 

23.  When    man    does    evil,    he    fulfils    his    own    will; 
but  if   he  does  good,  he  fulfils  the  will  of  God,  yet  with 
free  will. 

Suam  voluntatem  homines  faciunt,  non  Dei,  quando  id 
agunt  quod  Deo  displicet ;  quando  autem  id  faciunt  quod 
volunt  ut  divinae  serviant  voluntati,  quamvis  volentes  agant 
quod  agunt,  illius  tamen  voluntas  est,  a  quo  et  prseparatur  et 
jubetur  quod  volunt. 

From  Augustine,  Traded.  XIX.  in  Joann.  n.  1 9  (ed.  Migne, 
t.  iiL  p.  1555).  The  338th  Sentence  in  Prosper,  not  the 
336th  as  the  Benedictines  say,  and,  after  them,  Migne. 

24.  He  who  has  Christ  in  him  and  remains  in  Christ, 
advantages  only  himself  thereby,  and  not  Christ. 

Ita  sunt  in  vite  palmites,  ut  viti  nihil  conferant,  sed  inde 
accipiant  unde  vivant ;  sic  quippe  vitis  est  in  palmitibus,  ut 
vitale  alimentum  subministrat  iis,  non  sumet  ab  iis.  Ac  per 
hoc  et  manentem  in  se  habere  Christum  et  manere  in  Christo, 
discipulis  prodest  utrumque,  non  Christo.  Nam  prseciso 
palmite  potest  de  viva  radice  alius  pullulare ;  qui  autem 
prsecisus  est  sine  radice  non  potest  vivere. 

From  Augustine,  Tractat.  LXXXI.  in  Joann.  n.  1  (ed. 
Migne,  t.  iii.  p.  1841).  The  366th  (not  364th)  Sentence  in 

25.  The  love  of  God  is  itself  a  gift  of  God. 

Prorsus  donum  Dei  est  deligere  Deum.  Ipse  ut  deligere- 
tur  dedit,  qui  non  dilectus  diligit.  Displicentes  amati  sumus, 
ut  fieret  in  nobis  unde  placeremus.  Diffundit  enim  caritatem 
in  cordibus  nostris  Spiritus  Paths  et  Filii,  quern  cum  Patre 
amamus  et  Filio. 

From  Augustine,  Tractat.  Oil.  in  Joann.  n.  5  (ed.  Migne, 
t.  iii.  p.  1898).  The  370th  (not  368th)  Sentence  in 

After  drawing  up  these  twenty-five  chapters  or  canons, 
the  Synod  composed  its  own  confession  on  the  doctrine  of 


grace  in  a  kind   of  creed,  which   contains  the  five  following 
points  in  opposition  to  the  Semipelagians : l— 

(a)  By  the  sin  of  Adam,  free  will  is  so  weakened  that 
henceforth  no  one  can  love  God  in  a  suitable  manner,  believe 

1  This  epilogue  runs  :  Ac  sic  secundiun  suprascriptas  sanctarum  Scripturarum 
sententias  vel  antiquorum  patrum  definitiones  hoc  Deo  propitiante  et  prsedicare 
debemus  et  credere,  quod  per  peccatum  primi  hominis  ita  inclinatum  et 
attenuatum  fuerit  liberum  arbitrium,  ut  nullus  postea  aut  diligere  Deum  sicut 
opportuit,  aut  credere  in  Deum,  aut  operari  propter  Deum  quod  bonum  est 
possit,  nisi  eum  gratia  misericordiae  divinae  praevenerit.  Unde  et  Abel  justo  et 
Noe  et  Abrahae,  et  Isaac  et  Jacob  et  omni  antiquorum  patrum  multitudini  illam 
praeclaram  fidem,  quam  in  ipsorum  laude  praedicat  Apostolus  Paulus,  non  per 
bonum  natures  quod  prius  in  Adam  datum  fuerat,  sed  per  gratiam  Dei  credimus 
fuisse  collatam.  Quam  gratiam  etiam  post  adventum  domini  omnibus  qui 
baptizari  desiderant,  non  in  libero  arbitrio  haberi,  sed  Christi  novimus  simul  et 
credimus  largitate  conferri,  secundum  illud  quod  saepe  jam  dictum  est  et  quod 
saepe  jam  dictum  est  et  quod  praedicat  Paulus  apostolus  :  Vobis  donatum  est  pro 
Christo  non  solum  ut  in  eum  credatis,  sed  etiam,  ut  pro  illo  patiamini 
(Phil.  i.  29)  ;  et  illud :  Deus  qui  ccepit  in  vobis  bonum  opus,  perficiet  usque  in 
diem  domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi  (Phil.  i.  6);  et  illud:  Or  alia,  salvi  facti 
estis  per  fidem,  et  hoc  non  ex  vobis,  dei  enim  donum  est  (Eph.  ii.  8);  et  quod 
de  se  ipso  ait  apostolus :  Misericordiam  consecutus  sum,  ut  fidelis  essem 
(1  Cor.  vii.  25);  non  dexit  quia  eram  sed  ut  essem  ;  et  illud  :  Quid  habes  quod 
non  accepistii.  (1  Cor.  iv.  7);  et  illud:  Omne  datum  bonum  et  omnc  donum 
perfectum  desursum  est,  descendens  a  patre  luminum  (Jac.  i.  17);  et  illud  :  Nemo 
habet  quidquam  nisi  illi  datum  fuerit  desuper  (Joann.  iii.  27).  Innumerabilia 
sunt  sanctorum  scripturarum  testimonia  quae  possunt  ad  probandam  gratiam 
proferri  sed  brevitatis  studio  praetermissa  sunt,  quia  et  revera  cui  pauca  non 
sufficiunt  plura  non  proderunt.  Hoc  etiam  secundum  fidem  Catholicam 
credimus,  quod  accepta  per  baptismum  gratia  omnes  baptizati,  Christo  auxiliante 
et  co-operante,  quae  ad  salutem  animse  pertinent,  possint  et  debeant,  si  fideliter 
laborare  voluerint  adimplere.  Aliquos  vero  ad  malum  divina  potestate  prae- 
destinatos  esse  non  solum  non  credimus,  sed  etiam  si  sunt  qui  tantum  malum 
credere  velint,  cum  omni  detestatione  illis  anathema  dicimus.  Hoc  etiam 
salubriter  profitemur  et  credimus,  quod  in  omni  opere  bono  non  nos  incipimus 
et  postea  per  Dei  misericordiam  adjuvamur  sed  ipse  nobis  nullis  praecedentibus 
bonis  meritis  et  fidem  et  amorem  sui  prius  inspirat,  ut  et  baptismi  sacramenta 
fideliter  requiramus,  et  post  baptismum  cum  ipsius  adjutorio  ea  quae  sibi  sunt 
placita  implere  possimus.  Unde  manifestissime  credendum  est  quod  et  illius 
latronis,  quern  dominus  ad  paradisi  patriam  revocavit,  et  Cornelii  centurionis 
ad  quern  angelus  Domini  missus  est,  et  Zacchaei  qui  ipsum  dominum  suscipere 
meruit,  ilia  tarn  admirabilis  fides  non  fuit  de  natura,  sed  divinaa  largitatis  donum. 
Et  quia  definitionem  antiquorum  patrum  nostramque,  quae  suprascripta  est, 
non  solum  religiosis,  sed  etiam  laicis  medicamentum  esse  et  desideramus  et 
cupimus,  placuit,  ut  earn  et  illustres  ac  inagnifici  viri,  qui  nobiscum  ad  prae- 
fatam  festivitatem  convenerunt,  propria  manu  subscriberent. — On  this  Appendix 
to  the  twenty-five  chapters,  cf.  Norris,  Historia  Pelag.,  lib.  ii.  c.  23,  in  the 
collective  edition  of  the  Works  of  Cardinal  Noris,  1729,  t.  i.  p.  524. 

SYNODS  AT   ORANGE   AND  VALENCE,  A.D.   529.  165 

in  Him,  or  act  for  God's  sake,  unless  grace  has  first  come  to 
him.  Thus  that  glorious  faith  of  Abel,  Noah,  Abraham, 
Isaac,  and  other  ancient  Fathers,  on  account  of  which  the 
apostle  praises  them,  was  imparted  to  them,  not  per  bonum 
natures,  which  was,  in  the  beginning,  given  to  Adam,  but  by 
the  grace  of  God.  (The  direct  contrary  of  this  had  been 
taught  by  Faustus.) 

(6)  All,  however,  are  able,  after  they  have  received  grace 
through  baptism,  with  the  co-operation  of  God,  to  accomplish 
what  is  necessary  for  the  salvation  of  their  soul. 

(c)  It  is  in  no  way  our  belief  that  some  are  predestinated 
by  God  to  evil  (predestinarian  heresy) ;  rather,  if  there  are  any 
who  believe  a  thing  so  evil,  we,  with  horror,  say  anathema. 

(d)  In   every  good   work   the   beginning  does  not  come 
from  us ;  but  God,  without  any  previous  merits  on  our  side, 
inspires  us  with  faith  and  love,  so  that  we  seek  for  baptism, 
and  after  baptism  can,  with  His  assistance,  fulfil  His  will. 

(e)  Since  this  doctrine  of  the  Fathers  and  of  the  Synod  is 
wholesome  for  laymen  also,  the  distinguished  members  of  the 
laity,  who  have  been  present  at  the  solemnity,  should  also 
subscribe.      In   consequence   of    this    invitation,  besides  the 
bishops,  also  the  Prsefectus  Prsetorio  Liberius  and  seven  other 
viri  illmtres1  subscribed. 

From  a  letter  of  Pope  Boniface  n.  to  Archbishop  Csesarius 
of  Aries,2  we  see  that  the  latter,  as  president  of  the  Synod  of 
Orange,  after  the  end  of  it,  sent  the  abbot  and  priest  Armenius 
to  Eome,  and,  among  other  things,  gave  him  a  letter  to  his 
friend  Boniface,  a  cleric  of  high  position  there,  in  order  that 
the  latter  might  procure  from  Pope  Felix  a  definite  confirma- 
tion of  the  Synod,  as  desired  by  Csesarius.  In  the  meantime, 
however,  Felix  had  died,  and  Boniface  himself  had  become 
Pope,  as  the.  second  of  that  name.  He  did  not  fail  to  fulfil 
the  desire  of  Caesarius  at  once  by  means  of  the  letter  referred 
to.  This  is  dated  viii.  Kal.  Febr.  Lampadio  et  Oreste  V.  G. 

1  Cf.  note  9  of  Sirmond,  and  the  notes  c  and  cc  of  Vinius  in  Mansi,  t.  viii. 
p.  720  sq. 

-  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  735  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1109  ;  Sirmond,  Condi. 
Oallise,  t.  i.  p.  223  ;  and  in  the  tenth  volume  of  the  Benedictine  edition  of  S. 
Augustine,  ed.  Migne,  t.  x.  p.  1790 ;  ed.  Gaume,  t.  x.  p.  2455. 


Coss.,  that  is,  January  25,  530.  As,  however,  Felix  iv.  did 
not  die  until  September  18,  530,  it  is  impossible  that  the 
date  of  this  letter  should  be  genuine,  and  as  Pagi  (ad  ann. 
530,  n.  6,  and  529,  n.  11)  supposes,  must  have  been  arbitrarily 
added  a  sciolo  quopiam.  Sirmond  (I.e.  p.  605)  supposed 
that  we  ought  to  read,  Post  Consulatum  Lampadii,  etc.,  i.e. 
A.D.  531;  but  Pagi  thinks,  and  not  unreasonably,  that  if 
Boniface  had  been  elected  in  September  530  (Pagi,  ad  ann. 
530,  n.  '4),  he  could  hardly  have  put  off  the  answer  to 
Csesarius  into  the  January  of  the  following  year,  as  he  says 
himself  in  this  letter :  "  Catholicum  non  distulimus  dare 
responsum"  (Pagi,  ad  ann.  529,  n.  11).  Accordingly,  as  the 
Benedictine  editors  of  the  Concil.  Gallice  opine,  instead  of 
viii.  Kal.  Febr.,  we  should  read  Decembres  or  Novembres  of 
the  year  530.1  Another  way  was  taken  by  Cardinal  Noris 
(Hist.  Pelag.  ii.  23),  by  the  assumption  that  Felix  iv.  had 
died  in  September  529;  and  the  Ballerini  defended  this  view 
in  their1  edition  of  the  works  of  the  cardinal.  Noris,  Opp. 
Omnia,  t.  i.  p.  528,  and  t.  iv.  p.  932. 

Pope  Felix,  in  this  letter,  expresses  himself  quite  decisively 
against  the  Semipelagian  contention  that  many  a  man,  even 
without  the  divine  grace  (prceveniens),  could  of  himself  come 
to  faith  in  Christ,  and  then  says :  Quapropter  ajfectu  congruo 
salutantes  suprascriptam  confessionem  vestram  consentaneam 
catholicis  patrum  regulis  approbamus.  There  may  be  a 
question  whether  he  meant  by  this  the  whole  minutes  of 
Orange,  or  only  the  confession  of  faith  appended  to  the 
twenty-five  chapters.  In  the  expression  confessio  there  lies 
no  necessity  for  thinking  only  of  the  latter ;  for,  in  fact,  the 
whole  forms  a  kind  of  confession  of  faith,  and  the  epilogue, 
which  has  specially  this  form,  is  by  itself  nothing  independent, 
no  conclusive  creed,  but  in  its  very  first  words  represents 
itself  as  belonging  to  the  twenty-five  chapters.  It  is  quite 
true  that  the  Pope,  in  his  answer,  chiefly  makes  reference  to 
this  epilogue,  and  weaves  into  his  own  letters  such  Bible 
passages  as  are  also  found  in  the  epilogue  (1  Cor.  vii.  25  and 
Phil.  i.  29);  but  immediately  afterwards  he  adduces  the 
words  of  Christ  in  S.  John  xv.  5,  and  indeed  as  quoted  by 

1  Cf.  Jaffe,  Regesta  Pvntif,  1851,  p.  72. 

SYNODS  AT  ORANGE  AND  VALENCE,  A.D.  529.       167 

the  Fathers  at  Orange,  although  this  is  found  not  in  the 
epilogue,  but  in  chapter  7.  So  also  he  repeats  the  passages, 
Prov.  viii.  35,  Ps.  Iviii.  11,  which  occur  in  chapters  4 
and  14. 

It  is  customary  to  assign  the  Synod  of  Valence  to  the 
same  year  (529)  as  that  of  Orange,  or  to  the  following  year 
(530).  The  Acts  of  this  Synod  are  lost,  and  we  have  no 
information  respecting  it  but  that  which  is  contained  in  the 
life  of  S.  Caesarius,  by  his  disciple,  the  deacon  Cyprian.  In 
this  it  is  said :  "  Many  stood  up  against  the  doctrine  of  grace 
taught  by  Caesarius,  and  by  a  false  apprehension  of  it  there 
arose  in  Gaul  an  evil  suspicion  against  the  doctrine  of  the 
man  of  God.  On  this  account  the  bishops  beyond  the  Isere, 
in  Valentia  (Valence),  came  together.  On  account  of  sick- 
ness, Caesarius  was  unable  himself  to  be  present,  although  he 
wished  to  be ;  but  he  sent  some  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons 
as  deputies,  and  among  them,  in  particular,  the  celebrated 
Bishop  Cyprian  of  Toulon.  The  latter  showed,  at  the  Synod, 
from  passages  of  the  Bible  and  of  the  holy  Fathers,  that  no 
man  could  make  progress  in  divine  things  by  himself  alone, 
and  without  gratia  prceveniens.  For  the  perusal  of  the  Synod, 
the  man  of  God  (Caesarius  afterwards)  furnished  the  complete 
array  of  proofs  from  the  apostolic  tradition.  Pope  Boniface, 
after  he  had  learnt  of  the  controversy,  rejected  the  opinions 
of  the  opponents,  and  confirmed,  by  apostolic  authority,  the 
judgment  (prosecutio)  l  of  Csesarius."  2 

Noris  (Hist.  Pelag.  ii.  23),  Pagi  (ad  ann.  529,  n.  8  sqq.), 
and  all  the  other  writers  represent  the  matter  as  though  the 
Synod  of  Orange  had  not  at  once  attained  to  full  recognition 
in  Gaul,  and  that  Caesarius  had,  for  that  reason,  summoned  a 
new  and  larger  Synod  at  Valence.  But,  in  the  first  place, 
the  original  documents  say  not  a  word  of  Caesarius  having 
summoned  the  Synod ;  on  the  contrary,  he  appears  rather  to 
have  been  invited  to  it ;  and  this  must  be  right,  for  Valentia 

1  On  the  expression  prosecutio-=sententia,  cf.  Du  Cange,  Qlossar.  s.v. 

2  The  narrative  of  the  deacon  Cyprian  is  in  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  723  ;  Hardouin, 
t.  ii.  p.  1103.     Still  better  (avoiding  the  misprint  solidtans  for  solits),  in  the 
tenth  volume  of  the  Benedictine  edition  of  8.  Augustine,  ed.  Gaume,  p.  2458, 
ed.  Migne,  p.  1792  ;  and  in  Noris,  Hist.  Pelag.  lib.  ii.  c.  23,  p.  528,  t.  i.   Opp. 


belonged,  not  to  the  ecclesiastical  province  of  Aries,  but  to 
that  of  Vienne,  as  we  saw  above  (sec.  211)  from  the  decisions 
of  Popes  Leo  I.  and  Hilary,  who  assigned  the  suffragan 
bishoprics  of  Valence,  Tarantaise,  Geneva,  and  Grenoble  to 
the  metropolitan  see  of  Vienne.  Valence,  however,  lies  on 
the  boundary  between  the  country  on  this  side  and  on  the 
other  side  of  the  Isere,  and  when  the  deacon  Cyprian,  who 
lived  with  Caesarius  of  Aries,  says  that  the  bishops  ultra 
Isaram  had  come  to  Valence,  and  also  Caesarius  had  sent 
deputies  thither,  the  result  comes  out.  The  bishops  of  Gallia 
Viennensis  and  Lugdunensis,  living  on  the  other  side,  that 
is,  on  the  north  of  the  Isere,  on  account  of  the  prevailing 
doctrinal  controversies,  determined  to  unite  in  a  great  Synod 
with  the  bishops  on  the  south  of  the  Isere,  and  for  this 
purpose  selected  Valence,  which  was  peculiarly  suitable  for 
such  a  common  assembly.  Ecclesiastically  it  belonged  to  the 
north  of  the  Isere,  the  province  of  Vienne,  but  in  geographical 
position  to  the  south  of  the  Isere,  lying  near  its  junction  with, 
the  Rhone. 

In  the  second  place,  we  find  in  our  original  documents 
not  the  slightest  justification  of  the  assumption  that  the 
Synod  of  Valence  was  held  after  that  of  Orange.  The  deacon 
Cyprian  does  not  indicate  the  latter  (at  least  as  Noris,  Pagi, 
and  the  rest  understood  him) ;  and  it  is  a  mere  assumption 
on  their  part  when  they  place  the  Synod  of  Valence  after 
that  of  Orange.  The  reverse  seems  to  me  to  be  the  truth, 
and  I  believe  it  possible  to  verify  this  by  reference  to  the 
original  documents.  They  relate  that,  when  the  doctrine  of 
Ceesarius  came  into  suspicion,  the  bishops  assembled  at 
Valence;  but  his  doctrine  was  in  suspicion  with  the  Semi- 
pelagians  for  a  considerable  time  before  the  Synod  of  Orange. 
The  first  thing  that  happened  after  the  origin  of  the  suspicion 
was  the  assembly  at  Valence.  After  this  was  ended,  Caesarius 
furnished  the  proof  for  the  true  doctrine  from  tradition,  and 
Pope  Boniface  confirmed  this.  When  the  Synod  of  Orange, 
under  the  presidency  of  Caesarius,  verified  the  true  doctrine 
from  the  writings  of  Augustine,  and  Pope  Boniface  confirmed 
the  decrees  of  Orange,  I  suppose  that  the  biographer  Cyprian 
(our  authority)  had  understood  by  the  proof  which  Csesarius 

SECOND   SYNOD   AT   VAISON,  A.D.   529.  169 

furnished  nothing  else  but  the  decrees  of  the  Synod  of 
Orange,  and  that  this  accordingly  took  place  later  than  that 
of  Valence. — -After  this  exposition  of  our  views,  we  must 
regard  the  attempt  of  Pagi  (ad  ann.  529,  n.  10)  to  assign 
the  Synod  of  Valence  to  the  year  530  as  radically  a  mistake. 

SEC.  243.  Second  Synod  at  Vaison,  A.D.  529.1 

The  Synod  at  Carpentras  had  ordained  that,  on  Novem- 
ber 6  of  next  year,  a  new  assembly  should  take  place  at 
Vaison  (in  vico  Vasensi)  (see  sec.  239).  It  was  attended  by 
eleven  or  twelve  bishops,  and  on  the  Nones  of  the  month  of 
November,  A.D.  529,  that  is,  on  November  5,  it  was  opened 
and  closed.2  As  Vaison  is  an  episcopal  city  in  the  province 
of  Aries,  Archbishop  Csesarius  took  the  presidency,  and  this 
four  months  after  the  holding  of  the  celebrated  second  Synod 
of  Orange.  The  assembly  at  Vaison,  as  is  said  in  the  preface 
to.  the  minutes,  had  no  other  aim  than  to  keep  alive  love  and 
harmony  among  the  bishops,  and  to  recall  back  to  remem- 
brance the  ancient  ordinances  of  the  Church.  There  was  no 
contested  matter  to  be  decided.  After  the  reading  of  the 
ancient  canons,  they  were  contented  to  draw  up  five  new 
ones,  from  which  they  expected  a  beneficent  effect  on  the  life 
of  the  Church.  They  are,  moreover,  of  different  meaning. 
The  first  was  very  important  for  the  future  education  of  the 
clergy,  the  second  for  the  improvement  and  the  universal 
introduction  of  preaching,  the  fourth  for  the  maintenance  of 
a  close  union  with  Rome.  The  two  others  refer  to  special 
points  in  worship : — 

1.  All  priests  in  the  parishes  must,  as  is  already  the 
very  wholesome  custom  in  all  Italy,  receive  the  younger 
unmarried  lectors  into  their  house,  and  instruct  them  in  the 

1  If  it  is  called  by  some,  e.g.  Binius,  the  third  Synod  of  Vaison,  this  is  done 
with  reference  to  Baronius's  mistaken  notion  of  a  Concilium  Vasense,  A.D.  325 
(ad  ann.  325,  n.  177). 

-  Remi  Ceillier  (t.  xvi.  p.  591)  and  Richard  (Analysis  Condliorum,  t.  i.  p. 
515)  place  it,  by  mistake,  on  the  7th  of  November.  The  president  of  the  Synod 
says  quite  expressly  in  his  subscription :  Die  Nonas  Novbr.  Dedo  juniore  0.  V. 
Consule.  The  Nones  of  some  months  (0  M  M  J)  fall  certainly  on  the  7th,  but 
those  of  November  on  the  5th. 


singing  of  psalms  (psalmos  parare),1  in  the  Church  lessons, 
and  in  the  law  of  the  Lord,  so  that  they  may  have  able 
successors.  If,  however,  such  a  lector  shall  afterwards  desire 
to  marry,  the  permission  must  not  be  refused  him. 

2.  Not  only  in  the  cities,  but  also  in  all  rural  churches, 
the  priests  may  preach.     If  the  priest  is  hindered  through 
sickness,  a  deacon  should  read  a  homily  by  a  Father  of  the 

3.  As  in  Eome,  in  the  East,  and  in  Italy,  so  also  in  our 
churches  the   Kyrie   Eleison   must    be    frequently  sung,  for 
the   awaking   of    penitence,  as  well    at    matins  as  at  Mass 
and   vespers,      Moreover,  at    all    Masses,  as  well   at   early 
Masses2    as    at    those    during    Lent    and    the    Masses    for 
the  dead,  the   Tersanctus  should   be  said,  as  in  the    public 

4.  The  name  of  the  Pope  of  the  period  should  be  read 
aloud  in  the  churches  (in  the  diptychs,  or  in  the  corresponding 
part  of  the  liturgy). 

5.  As  at  Rome,  and  in  the  East,  and  in  all  Africa  and 
Italy,  on  account  of  the  heretics  who  deny  the  eternity  of 
the  Son  of  God  (Arians),  in  all  the  closing  forms  after  the 
Gloria  there  is  added,  Sicut  erat  in  principio ;  so  must  it  be 
also  in  all  our  churches.3 

Gratian,  in  his  Decret.  c.  15,  C.  xiii.  q.  2,  brings  forward 
another  canon  belonging  to  the  Concilium  Varense  or  Vasense, 
which  forbids  surplus  fees  for  funerals.  This,  however, 
certainly  belongs  to  the  Concilium  Namnetense  in  the  ninth 
century,  and  will  hereafter  meet  us  as  the  6th  canon  of  that 

1  Parare  in  this  sense  is  not  found  in  Du  Cange,  Glossar.     Yet  he  suggests 
(t.  v.  pp.  164  and  166)  that  parare =metare. 

2  We  have  already  seen  (sees.  219  and  222)  that  Missa  matutina  and  vcspertina 
are  often  taken  as  identical  with  matins  and  vespers.     In  the  canon  before  us, 
on  the  contrary,  the  Missa  matutina  is  to  be  understood  as  a  real  Mass  in  the 
present  meaning  of  the  words,  and  the  Missa  matutinalis  early  Mass,  in  dis- 
tinction from  the  principal  service,  or  the  solemn  Mass,  Missa  publica.     Cf.  Du 
Cange,   Glossar.  s.v.  Mixsa  matutinalis  publica  and  quadragesimalis,  t.  iv.  pp. 
821,  823,  and  824. 

3  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  725  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1105  sq. ;  Sirmond,  Condi. 
Galliae,  t.  i.  p.  225. 

4  Printed  in  Hardouin,  t.  vi.  pt.  i.  p.  458. 

SYNODS  AT   ROME,   LARISSA,    ETC.,  A.D.  531.  171 

SEC.  244.  Synods  at  Rome,  Larissa,  and  Constantinople, 
A.D.  531. 

Pope  Boniface  n.,  to  whom  we  have  already  frequently 
referred,  had  come  into  possession  of  the  Eoman  see  not 
without  violent  contests.  After  the  death  of  his  predecessor, 
Felix  rv.,  two  parties  stood  over  against  each  other.  The 
one  chose  Dioscurus,  and  consecrated  him  in  the  Basilica  of 
Constantine  (Lateran  Church) ;  the  other  elevated  Boniface 
to  the  throne,  and  consecrated  him  in  the  Basilica  Julii.1 
Occasion  for  this  schism  was  given  by  the  endeavour  of  the 
East  Gothic  Arian  King  Athalaric,  in  understanding  with  a 
portion  of  the  clergy,  to  get  possession  of  the  Eoman  see  in  a 
manner  as  arbitrary  as  his  grandfather  Theoderic  the  Great 
had  done  at  the  elevation  of  the  previous  Pope,  Felix  rv. 
Probably  another  part  of  the  Eoman  clergy  opposed  him  in 
this,  and  thus  gave  occasion  for  the  schism.  Whether 
Boniface  or  Dioscurus  was  protected  by  the  King,  cannot  any 
longer  be  decided.  I  suppose,  however,  the  former,  since  the 
name  of  his  father,  Sigisbold  or  Sigisvult,2  shows  that  he 
belonged  to  the  Gothic  nation,  and  because  the  King-,  after 
the  death  of  the  anti-Pope,  made  no  attempt  to  put  another 
in  his  place.  Pagi  (ad  ann.  530,  n.  5)  shows  that  Felix  rv. 
died  September  18,  530,  and  that  Boniface  was  elected  only 
three  days  later.  We  have  already  seen  that  others  prefer 
529.  The  schism  lasted  twenty-nine  days;  that  is,  until  the 
death  of  Dioscurus,  on  October  14,  put  an  end  to  it.  The 
latter  had  by  simony  and  such  like  means  made  himself  a 
party ; 3  for  this  reason  the  Eoman  Senate  made  a  decree, 
that  for  the  future  every  papal  election  should  be  altogether 
invalid,  if  the  elect,  either  in  his  own  person  or  by  others, 
had  made  promises  to  anyone.4 

1  Pope  Julius  had  erected  two  basilicas,  the  one  near  the  Forum,  the  other 
on  the  Flaminian  Way.     Cf.  Baronius,  ad  ann.  352,  n.  4. 

2  This  name  we  learn  from  Anastasius,  or  the  Liber  Pontificalis,  to  which 
we  are  indebted  for  this  intelligence.     Printed  in  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  729.     Cf. 
Baronius,  ad  ann.  529,  n.  2. 

3  This  is  clear  also  from  a  later  letter  of  the  Emperor  Justinian  to  Pope 
John  ;  cf.  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  731,  Nota  d. 

4  Cassiodor.  Variar.  lib.  9,  ep.  15  ;  also  in  Baronius,  ad  ann,  529,  n.  4. 


From  this  time  Boniface  was  no  longer  annoyed  by  any 
opponent ;  and  as  the  Gothic  King  made  no  endeavour  to  set 
up  any  other  in  opposition  to  him,  but,  on  the  contrary,  spoke 
of  him  with  the  most  respectful  expressions,1  and  did  not 
prevent  him  from  treating  his  former  opponents  with  harsh- 
ness, this  is  a  strong  proof  of  our  supposition  that  Boniface 
had,  at  the  beginning,  been  set  up  by  the  King.  The  ponti- 
fical book  does  not  conceal  that  this  Pope  now  went  to  work 
very  violently,  and  zelo  et  dolo  ductus,  cum  grandi  amaritudine 
brought  back  the  clergy  to  obedience.  An  edict,  in  which  he 
pronounced  anathema  on  his  former  opponent  Dioscurus,  was 
placed  by  him  in  the  archives  of  the  church,  and  he 
demanded  of  the  whole  assembled  clergy  the  subscription  of 
this  document.  According  to  the  words  of  the  pontifical 
book,  which  are  by  no  means  clear,  none  of  the  bishops  gave 
their  signature ;  in  the  biography  of  Pope  Agapetus,  on  the 
contrary,  the  same  pontifical  book  says  that  Boniface,  by 
violence  and  uncanonically,  extorted  the  anathema  on  Dios- 
curus from  the  bishops  and  priests,  but  that  Agapetus,  at  his 
accession  to  office  (A.D.  535),  had  this  document  burnt  publicly 
in  the  church.2 

In  the  short  period  of  the  reign  of  Pope  Boniface,  there 
fell  three  Koman  and  several  other  Synods.  The  first  Eoman 
Synod  he  got  together  in  the  Basilica  of  S.  Peter  with  the 
aim  of  preventing,  at  future  papal  elections,  the  renewal  of 
troublesome  occurrences,  such  as  had  happened  at  his  own, 
perhaps  also  in  order  to  take  the  appointment  to  the  Eoman 
see  out  of  the  hands  of  the  heretical  Gothic  Kings.  He  pre- 
sented here  a  constitutum,  which  granted  him  the  right  to 
nominate  his  own  successor ;  and  after  the  sacerdotes  had 
subscribed  it,  and  sworn  to  observe  it,  he  declared  the  deacon 
Vigilius  his  successor,  at  the  grave  of  S.  Peter.  This  was 
in  opposition  to  the  ancient  laws  of  the  Church,  and  met 
with  much  opposition,  undoubtedly  also  from  the  Gothic 
King.  The  Pope  himself,  moreover,  soon  regretted  his  action, 
and  therefore  he  assembled  a  second  Eoman  Synod,  at  which 
the  sacerdotes,  out  of  respect  for  the  Holy  See,  quashed 
(cassaverunt,  not  censuerunt)  what  had  been  done,  and  Boni- 

1  Of.  Karon ius,  I.e.  2  In  Baronius,  ad  ann.  531,  n.  3. 

SYNODS  AT  ROME,  LARISSA,   ETC.,   A.D.   531.  173 

face,  in  presence  of  the  Sacerdotes  (the  bishops  of  the  ecclesice 
suburbicarice,  see  vol.  i  p.  397),  probably  because  he  had 
opposed  the  pretensions  of  the  East  Gothic  King  in  regard  to 
the  papal  election.1  Both  Synods  undoubtedly  belong  to  the 
year  531. 

About  the  same  time  two  Greek  Synods  were  held  at 
Larissa  and  Constantinople.  After  the  death  of  the  Metro- 
politan Proclus  of  Larissa  in  Thessaly,  Stephen,  hitherto  a 
layman  and  a  warrior,  had  been  elected  in  his  place  by  the 
people  and  clergy,  and  all  whose  assent  was  necessary  (so  he 
says  himself).  In  accordance  with  ancient  custom,  there 
assembled  at  Larissa,  for  his  ordination,  a  provincial  Synod,  at 
which  the  well-to-do  burgesses  of  the  city  were  also  present, 
and  all  the  clergy.  But  the  priest  Antonius,  and  the  bishops 
Demetrius  of  the  Island  of  Sciathus  and  Probian  of  Demetrias, 
although  they  had  themselves  subscribed  the  document  for 
the  ordination  of  Stephen,  and  Probian  had  even  delivered  a 
laudatory  speech  about  him,  immediately  betook  themselves 
to  Constantinople,  and  made  complaints  before  the  Patriarch 
Epiphanius,  that  the  ordination  of  Stephen  was  uncanonical, 
and  that  another  bishop  must  be  appointed. 

The  Patriarch  hereupon  sent  an  edict  to  Larissa,  in 
which  he  ordered  Stephen  to  lay  down  his  office,  because  he 
had  been  consecrated  in  opposition  to  the  canons.  He  offered 
no  proof  of  this,  nor  did  he  invite  Stephen  to  offer  a  canonical 
defence.  On  the  contrary,  he  interdicted  the  bishops  of 
Thessaly  and  the  clergy  of  Larissa  from  Church  communion 
with  Stephen,  and  forbade  his  receiving  sustentation  from  the 
property  of  the  Church.  He  treated  him  accordingly  as  a 
person  already  convicted,  before  having  first  instituted  an 
inquiry.  For  the  publication  of  this  sentence  he  com- 
missioned a  certain  Andrew  (a  cleric  of  Constantinople),  who 
met  Stephen,  not  at  Larissa,  but  in  Thessalonica,  whither  he 
had  travelled,  and  where  he  read  to  him  the  letter  of  the 
Patriarch  of  Constantinople.  Stephen  immediately  declared 
that  he  appealed  to  the  Pope,  to  whom  alone,  if  his  election 
was  to  be  objected  to,  the  trial  of  the  case  belonged.  But  he 

1  Our  authority  for  these  two  Synods  is  the  Liber  Pontificates,  in  Mansi,  t. 
viii.  pp.  729  and  737  ;  Baronius,  ad  ann.  531,  n.  1  and  2. 


was  against  his  will  brought  to  Constantinople,  and  would 
there  have  been  kept  in  chains,  if  some  persons  had  not 
become  responsible  for  him  and  his  appearance  at  the 
residence.  In  this  necessity  he  turned,  by  writing,  to  the 
Pope,  and  besought  him  in  a  very  copious  letter,  full  of 
the  recognition  of  the  Roman  primacy,  for  support  and 

In  a  second  letter  to  the  Pope,  he  informs  him  that  after 
his  arrival  in  Constantinople,  the  Patriarch  had  immediately 
held  a  o-woSo?  wSypovo-a.  Before  this  Stephen  said  he  had 
declared  his  appeal  to  Rome,  with  the  addition  that  the 
custom  which  had  hitherto  prevailed  in  the  province  of 
Thessaly  should  not  be  overthrown ;  nor  must  the  con- 
sideration of  the  apostolic  see,  imparted  by  Christ  and  the 
holy  canon,  and  preserved  per  antiquam  cpnsuetudinem,  be 
violated.  The  Patriarch,  he  said,  had  paid  no  attention  to 
this,  and  his  principal  aim  had  been  to  set  himself  forth  as 
master  and  judge  of  the  Churches  of  Thessaly.  The  Synod 
of  Constantinople  had  pronounced  his  deposition  without 
allowing  him  a  complete  defence,  and  his  appeal  to  Rome 
had  only  more  increased  the  hatred  against  him.  They  had 
reproached  him  with  having  attempted  to  diminish  the  rights 
of  the  holy  Church  of  the  chief  city.  At  the  reading  of  the 
synodal  sentence,  however,  he  had  declared  his  appeal,  but 
was  immediately  conducted  back  to  prison,  and  now  earnestly 
prayed  for  help.2 

The  Patriarch  did  all  in  his  power  to  prevent  the  com- 
plaints of  Stephen  from  coming  to  Rome ;  but  Bishop 
Theodosius  of  Echinus,  a  suffragan  of  Larissa,  succeeded  in 
getting  to  Italy,  and  conveyed  the  complaints  of  Stephen 
and  of  other  bishops,  with  other  documents  bearing  upon  the 
subject.  Hereupon  Boniface  held  his  third  Roman  Synod, 
December  7,  531,  in  consistorio  B.  Andrece  apostoli.  This  was 
a  building  adjoining — a  kind  of  secretarium — to  S.  Peter's 
Church.3  Under  the  presidency  of  the  Pope,  there  were 

1  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  741  sq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1111  sq. 

2  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  745  sq.  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1115  sq. 

3  Cf.  Du  Cange,  s.v.  Consistorium,  and  the  notes  of  Lucas  Holstenius  on  our 
Synod,  in  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  774. 

SYNODS   AT   ROME,    LARISSA,   ETC.,   A.D.    531.  175 

present  the  Bishops  Sabinus  of  Canusium,  Abundantius  of 
Demetrias,  Carosus  of  Centumcellse,  and  Felix  of  Numentum, 
with  many  priests  and  deacons.  The  Archdeacon  Tribunus 
announced  that  Bishop  Theodosius  of  Echinus  was  at  the 
door,  and  prayed  to  be  admitted.  When  this  was  granted, 
Theodosius  handed  in  the  documents  of  his  Metropolitan 
Stephen  of  Larissa,  which  he  had  brought  with  him.  After, 
at  the  command  of  the  Pope,  the  first  of  these,  directed  to 
the  Holy  See,  had  been  read,  Abundantius  rose,  and  remarked 
that  twice  in  this  document  Probian  was  mentioned  as  bishop 
of  Demetrias  ;  while,  in  truth,  he  had  obtained  this  see  only 
by  violence  and  deceit,  and  that  Abundantius  himself  was  its 
rightful  possessor.  The  Pope  ordered  that  both  the  letter  of 
Stephen  and  the  statement  of  Abundantius  should  be  received 
into  the  minutes  ;  and  then  permitted  the  reading  of  the 
second  letter,  also  addressed  to  him  by  Stephen.  We  have 
already  known  this,  and  after  it  had  been  embodied  in  the 
Acts,  the  first  session  closed,  as  it  was  towards  evening. 

The  second  session  took  place  on  the  9th  of  December. 
Theodosius  of  Echinus  presented  a  third  letter,  which  had 
emanated  from  three  of  Stephen's  suffragan  bishops,  and  in 
which  they  gave  the  Pope  an  account  of  all  that  had  taken 
place,  and  earnestly  besought  his  help.  These  were  the 
Bishops  Elpidius  of  Thebae  Phthioticse,  Timothy  of  Diocaesarea, 
and  Stephen  of  Lamia.  Thereupon  Theodosius  of  Echinus 
remarked  that  the  Bishop  of  Home  had  by  right  a  claim 
to  the  primacy  over  all  Churches  in  the  whole  world,  but 
he  had  specially  vindicated  the  Churches  of  Illyria  for  his 
government,1  as  was  proved  by  a  series  of  ancient  documents 
which  he  had  brought  with  him.  The  Pope  ordered  them  to 
be  read,  and  an  examination  to  be  made  as  to  whether  they 
agreed  with  those  contained  in  the  Eoman  archives,  and  were 
genuine.  There  were  twenty-six  letters,  almost  all  from 
Popes — from  Damasus,  Siricius,  Innocent  I.,  Boniface  I., 
Ccelestine  I.,  Xystus  III.,  and  Leo  the  Great ;  besides  some 
letters  from  the  Emperors  Honorius,  Theodosius,  Valentiniaii 

1  On  the  relation  of  Illyria  to  Rome,  cf.  Le  Quien,  Oriens  Christmnits,  t.  ii. 
p.  5  sqq.  ;  De  dioeces  Rlyr.  see.  vi.  sqq.;  and  Wiltseh,  Kirchl.  Geographic  u. 
Statistik,  Bd.  i.  S.  72  sqq. 


ra.,  and  Marcian,  as  well  as  from  Archbishop  Anatolius  of 
Constantinople,  all  from  the  middle  of  the  fourth  to  the 
middle  of  the  fifth  century.  All  these  letters  are  found  in 
the  minutes  of  the  Synod ; 1  but  here  they  end,  and  all  the 
rest  is  so  completely  lost,  that  we  do  not  know  at  all  what 
the  Synod  finally  decreed, 

SEC.  245.   The  Religious  Conference  at  Constantinople,  A.D.  533, 
and  the  alleged  Roman  Synod  under  Pope  John  II. 

In  the  short  account  given  above  of  the  Monophysite 
heresy  (sec.  208)  we  noticed  a  religious  conference,  which  the 
Emperor  Justinian  held  in  the  year  533  at  Constantinople, 
between  the  orthodox  and  the  Severians.  The  monk  Severus, 
one  of  the  leading  opponents  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon, 
had,  in  the  year  513,  under  the  Emperor  Anastasius,  who 
was  favourable  to  the  Monophysites,  been  raised  to  the 
patriarchal  see  of  Antioch.  Although  again  deposed,  after  a 
few  years,  under  the  Emperor  Justin  I.  he  yet  remained  the 
most  important  man  among  the  Monophysites,  and  their  most 
copious  writer,  and  a  special  division  among  them  received 
from  him  the  name  of  Severians.  In  order  to  bring  about,  if 
possible,  a  union  of  this  party  with  the  Church,  the  Emperor 
Justinian  called  together,  some  years  after  his  ascension  of 
the  throne,  six  peculiarly  able  bishops  of  the  orthodox — 
Hypatius  of  Ephesus,  John  of  Vesina,  Stephen  of  Seleucia, 
Anthimus  of  Trapezunt,  Innocent  of  Maronia  in  Thrace,  and 
Demetrius  of  Philippopolis  ;  and,  on  the  other  side,  seven 
leaders  of  the  Severians — Sergius  of  Cyrus,  Thomas  of 
Germanicia,  Philoxenus  of  Dulichium,  Peter  of  Theodosiopolis, 
John  of  Constantina,  and  Nonnus  of  Ceresina, — and  requested 
them  to  take  counsel  together,  in  peace  and  gentleness,  on  the 
points  of  difference  in  their  faith.  On  account  of  sickness, 
Theodosius  of  Philippopolis  was  unable  to  appear. 

As  place  of  assembly  the  Emperor  fixed  a  hall  of  the 
palace  Heptatonchon  Triclinion  at  Constantinople ;  and 
besides  the  bishops  named  there  were  also  a  good  many 
priests  and  deputies  of  monks  present.  In  order  that  he 

1  Mansi,  t.  viii.  pp.  749-772  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  pp.  1118-1140. 


might  not  interrupt,  the  Emperor  decided  not  to  be  personally 
present,  but  he  appointed  the  high  official  of  State,  Strategius, 
to  take  his  place. 

We  owe  our  knowledge  of  this  conference  to  the  fairly 
complete  account  which  one  of  the  orthodox  members, 
Innocent  of  Maronia,  gave  to  a  friend,  and  which  has  come 
down  to  us  in  a  Latin  translation,  which  in  many  parts  is 
faulty  and  defective.1  The  conference  was  opened  on  the 
first  day  by  Strategius  with  an  address  to  the  Orientals  (so 
the  Monophysites  were  called),  in  which  he  invited  them  to 
bring  forward,  without  contentiousness,  their  objections  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  Synod  of  Chalcedon.  The  Orientals  replied 
that  they  had  transmitted  their  confession  of  faith  to  the 
Emperor  in  writing.  As  the  orthodox  had  read  this  already, 
they  now  wanted,  by  some  questions,  to  give  their  opponents 
an  opportunity  of  more  fully  explaining  themselves.  Bishop 
Hypatius  was  their  mouthpiece  in  this.  To  the  question  : 
"  What  do  you  hold  concerning  Eutyches  ? "  the  Orientals 
replied  decisively :  "  He  is  a  heretic,  even  a  prince  of  heresy." 
On  the  other  hand,  they  wanted  to  declare  Dioscurus  and  the 
Eobber-Synod  as  orthodox.  In  this  Hypatius  discerned  a 
contradiction.  The  debate  which  arose  over  this  question,  of 
which  our  document  contains  but  little,  took  up  the  whole 

From  the  transactions  of  the  second  day,  we  see  that  the 
Orientals,  at  the  close  of  the  first,  had  made  the  admission, 
that  it  was  not  right  that  Dioscurus  and  his  general  Synod 
(the  Robber-Synod)  should  have  received  Eutyches  back  into 
Church  communion,  and  that,  therefore,  another  general 
Synod,  that  of  Chalcedon,  had  been  obliged  to  correct  that 
error.  This  the  Orientals  admitted  also  on  the  second  day ; 
but  they  reproached  the  Synod  of  Chalcedon  for  this  innova- 
tion, that  instead  of  ex  dudbus  naturis,  as  Cyril  and  the  old 
Fathers  taught,  they  had  put  in  dudbus  naturis,  and  had 
assumed  the  existence  of  two  natures  even  after  the  union  (of 
the  Godhead  and  manhood).  That,  they  said,  was  both  new 

1  Printed  in  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  817  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.    1159   sqq. ; 

Baronius,  ad  ann.  532,  n.  31  sqq.  Cf.  Walch,  Ketzerhist.  Bd.  vii.  S.  134  sqq. 
and  141  sq. 

IV.  12 


and  erroneous.  In  proof  of  this  they  appealed  to  the  writings 
of  Cyril,  Athanasius,  etc.,  and  of  Dionysius  the  Areopagite,1 
which  had  all  taught  only  one  nature  after  the  union. 

The  orthodox  contended,  on  the  contrary,  that  these 
writings  had  been  falsified  by  the  Apollinarists,  just  as  the 
letter  of  Athanasius  to  Epictetus  had  been  by  the  Nestorians. 
The  alleged  writings  of  Dionysius  the  Areopagite,  in  particular, 
were  certainly  not  genuine,  as  none  of  the  ancients  referred  to 
them,  although  Cyril  and  Athanasius  and  the  Nicene  Council 
could  easily  have  used  them.  The  Orientals  replied,  that 
even  if  all  these  writings  were  spurious,  yet  the  twelve  anathe- 
matisms  of  Cyril  were  genuine,  and  in  these  only  one  nature 
was  taught.  The  Council  of  Chalcedon,  however,  had  not 
received  the  writing  of  Cyril  in  which  these  anathematisms 
were  contained,  and  so  had  altered  the  doctrine.2  Hypatius 
replied  :  "  The  Synod  of  Chalcedon  accepted  on  their  side  all 
the  explanations  of  the  faith  approved  at  Ephesus  in  their 
entirety,  and  therefore  it  cannot  be  maintained  that  they 
had  made  an  exception  with  the  one  in  question,  and  had  re- 
jected it.  But  this  one  they  had  not  quite  expressly  adduced, 
because  therein  Cyril  speaks  of  two  hypostases  (in  the  sense 
of  natures)  in  Christ,  and  they,  in  opposition  to  the  Nestorians, 
asserted  only  one  hypostasis  in  Christ  (in  the  sense  of  person}. 
In  order  to  avoid  misunderstanding,  the  Synod  of  Chalcedon 
had  not  expressly  approved  that  writing  of  Cyril's." 

The  Orientals  remarked  that  Cyril  by  the  two  hypostases 
had  understood  nothing  else  but  the  two  natures,  and 
Hypatius  carried  this  correct  view  further  out.  But,  in 
order  to  show  the  difference  between  "from  two  natures"  and 
"  in  two  natures,"  the  Orientals  contended  that  only  when  we 
say  "  from  two  natures "  is  the  one  nature  of  the  incarnate 
Logos  maintained,  whilst  by  "  in  two  natures  "  a  duality  of 
persons  is  indicated.  The  orthodox  did  not  agree  to  this,  but 
maintained  that  the  Synod  of  Chalcedon  had  allowed  both 
modes  of  speech ;  and  even  Flavian  of  Constantinople,  who 
first  condemned  Eutyches,  had  spoken  of  "  one  incarnate 

1  This  is  the  earliest  mention  of  the  writings  of  the  pseudo-Dionysius  the 

2  Cf.  vol.  iii.  sees.  134,  189,  193. 


nature  of  the  divine  Word."  In  proof,  they  read  the  con- 
fession of  faith  of  this  bishop  (see  vol.  iii.  sec,  174),  and 
Hypatius  thereupon  proceeded  as  follows :  "  Although 
Flavian  used  the  expression  '  from  two  natures,'  Dioscurus, 
nevertheless,  so  ill-treated  him  (at  the  Kobber-Synod),  that 
the  Synod  of  Chalcedon  saw  from  that,  that  not  the  confes- 
sion of  two  natures  would  satisfy  the  Eutychians,  but  only 
the  confusa  et  commixta  et  imaginaria  vel  Manichceica 
unius  naturae  confessio.  Therefore,  for  more  exact  definition, 
they  had  taught  '  one  person  and  one  substance  in  two 
natures.' " 

The  Orientals  wanted  to  bring  forward  letters  of  Cyril  in 
which  he  had  expressly  rejected  the  doctrine  of  two  natures 
after  the  union ;  but  Hypatius  replied  that,  on  the  orthodox 
side  only  those  letters  of  Cyril  were  recognised  which  were 
approved  by  Synods,  the  others  were  neither  commended  nor 
rejected  ;  and  from  the  approved  letters  of  Cyril  the  proof 
was  now  brought  forward,  that  he  had  taught  an  inconfusa  et 
indivisa  duarum  naturarum  unitas.  As  the  opponents  laid 
great  weight  upon  other  letters  of  Cyril,  Hypatius  proved 
that  in  these,  as  in  many  other  patristic  passages,  and  also  in 
the  Bible,  the  duality  of  naturs  was  taught.  The  Orientals 
then  went  on  to  two  new  points,  that  through  the  recognition 
of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  many  of  the  faithful  had  been 
vexed,  and  that  Ibas  and  Theodoret  had  been,  at  Chalcedon, 
improperly  restored  to  communion,  and  replaced  in  their 
offices.  With  the  debate  on  this  point  the  second  session 

The  third  session  was  held  by  the  Emperor  himself  in  the 
presence  of  the  Senate,  after  taking  counsel  on  the  subject 
with  the  Patriarch  Epiphanius  of  Constantinople.  When  the 
session  began,  the  patriarch  withdrew,  but  the  Emperor  held 
a  conference  with  both  sides,  which  our  document  highly 
commends,  but  does  not  report.  The  Orientals  had  reflected 
on  their  opponents  with  the  Emperor,  as  being  unwilling  to 
acknowledge  that  our  Lord,  who  suffered  in  the  flesh,  was 
one  of  the  Trinity,  and  that  the  miracles  and  the  suffering  of 
Christ  belonged  to  one  and  the  same  person.  On  this  point 
the  Emperor  questioned  the  patriarch  who  had  now  returned, 


and  Hypatius,  and  in  their  answer  they  clearly  explained  the 
true  doctrine  of  the  Church,  namely,  that  the  miracles  and  the 
sufferings  certainly  belonged  to  one  person  but  to  different 
natures,  and  that  the  suffering  Christ  in  His  Godhead  was 
one  of  the  Trinity,  but  in  His  manhood  one  of  us.  On  a 
fourth  day  the  Emperor  again  convoked  the  orthodox  bishops 
in  the  presence  of  the  Senate,  and  explained  that  of  the 
Orientals  only  Bishop  Philoxenus  had  attained  to  a  better 
conviction  through  the  three  conferences,  and  had  returned  to 
the  Church.  Our  informant  adds  that  the  Emperor  exercised 
great  patience  with  the  other  Monophysite  bishops,  and 
waited  long  for  their  conversion,  but  none  of  them  returned  to 
the  Church.  On  the  other  hand,  many  of  the  clergy  and 
monks  who  had  attended  the  proceedings  now  received  the 
right  faith. 

About  the  same  time,  on  March  15,  533,  the  Emperor 
Justinian  promulgated  a  law,  in  which  he  pointed  out  to  his 
subjects  the  true  faith  in  the  sense  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon, 
and  particularly  laid  stress  upon  the  confession  that  the  Lord 
who  suffered  on  the  cross  was  one  of  the  Trinity.1  At  the 
same  time  it  appeared  to  him  necessary  to  obtain  for  this 
expression,  then  so  much  discussed,  the  papal  approbation  as 
well,  particularly  as  the  distinguished  Akoimetse  monks 
rejected  it,  and  even  Pope  Hormisdas,  a  short  time  before,  had 
pronounced  it  useless  and  even  dangerous  (see  vol.  iii.  sec. 
208).  Hormisdas  did  so,  not  because  he  found  this  formula 
erroneous  in  itself,  but  because  the  Monophysites  then  tried  to 
shelter  themselves  behind  it.  Now,  however,  the  state  of 
the  case  was  different.  The  formula  was  now  opposed  only 
by  the  Nestorians,  and  therefore  it  was  in  the  interest  of 
orthodoxy  that  Justinian  requested  its  confirmation  from  the 
Pope,  and  John  II.  granted  this  with  pleasure.2  Baronius  and 
others  supposed  that  the  Pope,  with  a  view  to  this  approval, 
summoned  a  Koman  Synod,  A.D.  534 ;  but  there  is  no  mention 

1  The  law  is  found  in  Greek  and  in  Latin,  in  lib.  6,  C.  De  Summa  Trinitate  ; 
in  Latin  only  in  Baronius,  ad  ann.  533,  n.  7. 

2  The  Emperor's  letter  to  the  Pope,  John's  answer,  and  a  further  letter  from 
him  on  this  matter,  are  in  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.   795  sqq.  ;  Hardouiu,   t.  ii.   p. 
1146  sqq. 

SYNOD  AT  MARSEILLES,  A.D.  533.  181 

of  this  in  the  original  documents,  and  even  in  the  letter  of 
the  Pope  to  the  Senate,  to  which  they  refer,  there  is  no  word 
of  a  Synod.1 

SEC.  246.  Synod  at  Marseilles  on  account  of  Bishop 
Contumeliosus,  A.D.  533. 

The  Acts  of  a  Synod  at  Marseilles  in  the  year  533  were 
discovered  some  decades  back  by  Dr.  Knust  in  the  same  codex 
of  the  Darmstadt  Library  in  which  he  also  found  the  minutes 
of  a  Synod  nearly  a  hundred  and  fifty  years  earlier  at  Nimes 
(see  vol.  iii.  sec.  110).  Occasion  for  the  Synod  at  Marseilles 
was  given  by  several  offences  of  Bishop  Contumeliosus  of  Ptiez, 
of  whom  also  three  letters  of  John  n.  and  one  of  Agapetus  I. 
treat.  We  shall  see  below  in  what  relation  these  four  papal 
letters  stand  to  our  Synod.  The  minutes  of  the  Synod  run  as 
follows : — 

Constitutio  Cccsarii  Papce  in  Massiliensi  urbe  habita 
episcoporum  xvi. 

Cum  ad  civitatem  Massiliehsem,  propter  requirenda  et 
discutienda  ea  qua?  de  fratre  nostro  Contumelioso  episcopo 
fuerant  divulgata  sacerdotes  Domini  convenissent,  residentibus 
sanctis  episcopis,  cum  grandi  diligentia  discussis  omnibus 
secundum  quod  gesta,  qua;  nobis  praesentibus  facta  sunt, 
continent  multa  turpia  et  inhonesta,  supradictus  Contumeliosus, 
convictus  ore  proprio,  se  confessus  est  perpetrasse ;  ita  ut  non 
solum  revincere  testes  non  potuerit,  sed  etiam  publice,  in 
conventu  episcoporum  et  laicorum  qui  interfuerant  in  terrani 
se  projiciens  clamaverit,  se  graviter  in  Deum  et  in  ordine 
pontificali  pecasse.  Pro  qua  re,  propter  disciplinani  catholicae 
religionis,  utile  ac  salubre  omnibus  visum  est,  ut  supradictus 
Contumeliosus  in  Casensi  monasterio,  ad  agendam  pcen- 
tentiam  vel  ad  expianda  ea  quse  commiserat  mitteretur ;  quam 
rem  studio  pcenitendi  et  ipse  libenter  amplexus  est.  Et  quia 
multas  domus  ecclesiae  Regensis  absque  ratione  contra 

1  Of.  Baronius  ad  ann.  534,  n.  13  sqq.  ;  Noris,  I>iss  in  historiam  controversix 
de  uno  ex  Trinitate  passo,  Opp.  Omnia,  t.  iii.  p.  862 ;  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  816  ; 
Walch,  Ketzerhist.  Bd.  vii.  S.  328,  Anm.  3,  and  S.  314  ff. 


canonum  statuta  sine  concilio  sanctorum  antistitum  perpetuo 
jure  distraxit,  hoc  sanctis  episcopis  visum  est,  ut  quidquid 
supradictne  ecclesise  constiterit  injuste  ab  ipso  alienatum, 
facta  ratione  ad  vicem  de  ejus  substantia  compensetur. 

Csesarius  peccator  constitutionem  nostram  religi  et  sub- 
scripsi  Not.  sub  die  viii.  Kal.  Junias  post  consulatum 
tertium  Lampadi  et  Orestis.  Cyprianus  (bishop  of  Toulon) 
peccator  consensi  et  subscripsi.  Prsetextatus  (bishop  of  Apt) 
peccator  consensi  et  subscripsi.  Eucherius  (bishop  of 
Avignon)  peccator  consensi  et  subscripsi.  Prosper  (bishop  of 
Vence)  peccator  consensi  et  subscripsi.  Herculius  (bishop  of 
S.  Paul  de  trois  chateaux)  peccator  consensi  et  subscripsi. 
Eusticus  (perhaps  bishop  of  Aire)  peccator  consensi  et  sub- 
scripsi. Pontadius  peccator  consensi  et  subscripsi.  Maximus 
(bishop  of  Aix)  peccator  consensi  et  subscripsi.  Porcianus 
(bishop  of  Digne),  peccator  consensi  et  subscripsi.  Item, 
Eucherius  peccator  consensi  et  subscripsi.  Aletius  (bishop  of 
Vaison)  peccator  consensi  et  subscripsi.  Vindemialis  (bishop 
of  Orange)  peccator  consensi  et  subscripsi.  Eodanius  peccator 
consensi  et  subscripsi.  Auxanius  peccator  consensi  et  sub- 
scripsi. Valentius  Abba,  directus  a  domno  meo  Fylagrio 
(bishop  of  Cavaillon)  conseusi  et  subscripsi.1 

The  president  of  this  Synod  was  Archbishop  Csesarius  of 
Aries,  and  from  his  subscription  it  appears  that  the  assembly 
took  place  on  the  25th  of  May  533.2  Besides  him  there 
were  fourteen  bishops,  and  an  abbot  as  the  representative  of 
his  bishop,  present.  As  far  as  the  sees  of  the  bishops  can 
still  be  ascertained  they  are  given.  We  learn  from  the 
minutes,  (a)  that  the  evil  reports  which  were  in  circulation 
about  Contumeliosus  had  occasioned  the  convoking  of  the 
Synod  ;  and  (b)  that  his  offences  were  turpia  (sins  of  the  flesh), 
which  comes  out  much  more  clearly  in  the  appendix  to  the 
letter  of  the  Pope  to  Caesarius.  (c)  Moreover,  he  had  seized 
Church  property,  (d)  At  the  beginning  of  the  Synod  he  was  not 
prepared  to  confess,  but  he  was  convicted  by  witnesses,  and 

1  Copied  from  the  Freiburg  Zeitsrhrift  fur  Thcol.  Jahrg.   1844,    Bd.   xi. 
S.  471. 

2  Not  on  May  21,  as  is  given  by  mistake  in  the  Freiburg,  Zcitschrift,  S.  470. 

SYNOD  AT  MARSEILLES,  A.D.   533.  183 

now  declared  himself  to  be  a  great  sinner  (as  it  appears,  only 
in  general  expressions).  («)  The  Synod  condemned  him  to  do 
penance  in  a  monastery,  for  which  he  showed  himself  quite 
willing  and  ready.  What  was  to  happen  to  him  after  his 
penance  was  accomplished  is  not  said.  (/)  For  the  damage 
which  Contumeliosus  had  done  to  Church  property,  he  was 
required  to  make  return  from  his  own  property. 

Let  us  now  consider  the  three  short  letters  of  Pope 
John  ii.  One  is  addressed  to  Archbishop  Caesarius  of  Aries, 
the  second  to  the  Gallic  bishops  generally,  the  third  to  the 
priests  and  deacons  of  Eiez.1  In  two  of  these  the  date  is  given, 
April  7,  534;  in  the  third,  to  Csesarius,  it  is  lacking.  As, 
however,  all  the  three  letters  have  the  same  contents,  and  it 
is  in  itself  probable  that  the  Pope  promulgated  on  one  and 
the  same  day  his  decision  to  all  the  three  parties  concerned 
(the  metropolitan,  the  comprovincials,  and  the  clergy  of 
Eiez),  we  may  assume  that  all  the  three  letters  were  written 
at  the  same  time,  after  the  Synod  of  Marseilles,  on  April  7, 
534.  In  all  three  it  is  said  that  Caesarius  and  the  other 
bishops  had  already  given  the  Pope  information  respecting 
Contumeliosus.  By  this  is  undoubtedly  meant  the  com- 
munication of  the  decree  of  their  Synod.  In  all  three  letters 
the  Pope  orders,  in  similar  terms,  that  the  sinful  bishop  (a) 
should  be  banished  to  a  monastery,  (b)  that  he  should  be 
deposed.  At  the  same  time,  (c)  he  names  for  the  present 
supervision  of  the  diocese  of  Eiez  a  visitor,  whose  tenure 
of  office  should  continue  until  the  new  occupancy  of  the  see. 
Accordingly,  the  Pope  goes  further  than  the  Synod  had  done. 
For  if  the  Synod  gave  only  one  decision  (with  regard  to 
the  monastery),  he  adds  two  others.  That  these  two  points 
going  beyond  the  Synod  of  Marseilles  are  contained  also  in 
the  undated  letter  to  Caesarius,  is  a  proof  that  we  must  not 
assume  (as  is  done  in  the  Freiburg  Zeitschrift,l.c.  S.  470),  that 
this  letter  was  written  before  our  Synod,  and  had  even 
occasioned  its  being  convoked.  As  we  know  from  other 
sources,2  all  the  bishops  of  the  province  were  not  agreed  that 
Contumeliosus  should  be  deposed  for  ever ;  they  rather  wished 

1  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  807  sqq.  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1153  sqq. 

2  From  the  address  of  Csesarius  to  his  comprovincial  bishops.     See  below. 


that,  after  the  penance  had  been  done,  he  might  be  restored 
to  his  office.  In  reference  to  this,  then,  Caesarius,  who  for 
himself,  and  rightly,  was  in  favour  of  the  severer  view, 
allowed  the  decree  of  the  Synod  to  be  so  drawn  up  that  only 
the  removal  into  a  monastery  was  there  ordered,  whilst  it  was 
quite  silent  as  to  the  deposition.  Otherwise,  perhaps,  he  would 
have  attained  to  unanimity.  That,  however,  which  was  want- 
ing in  the  synodal  decree  the  Pope  had  now  to  complete, 
and  he  did  so.  He  even  added  an  appendix  to  his  letter 
to  Caesarius,  in  which  he  collected  a  number  of  older  canons, 
in  order  to  show  that  in  these  deposition  had  been  pronounced 
on  unchaste  clerics. 

After  Caesarius  received  this  letter,  he  added  himself  a 
large  series  of  canons  of  similar  content,  the  9th  of  Nicaea, 
and  several  of  Gallican  Synods,  and  sent  the  letter  of  the 
Pope,  together  with  these  two  appendices,  and  an  address  to 
his  comprovincials,1  in  order  to  convince  those  who  had 
spoken  in  favour  of  a  milder  treatment  of  Contumeliosus, 
that  on  an  adulterous  bishop  deposition  must  necessarily  be 
inflicted,  and  that  one  who  had  done  penance  could  not 
possibly  be  restored  to  his  spiritual  office.  From  a  letter  of 
the  next  Pope  Agapetus  I.  to  Caesarius,  dated  July  18, 
535,  we  learn  that  deposition  was  now  pronounced  upon 
Contumeliosus,  but  that  he  appealed  from  this  sentence  of 
the  provincial  Synod  to  the  Pope,  maintained  his  innocence, 
and  found  a  protection  in  the  Pope.  The  latter  ordered  that 
a  new  tribunal  delegated  by  him  should  investigate  the  matter 
anew,  but  that  Contumeliosus,  who,  after  the  expiration  of  his 
time  of  penance,  had  now  returned  to  Eiez,  should  abstain 
from  the  celebration  of  Mass  and  the  administration  of  his 
diocese  until  the  matter  was  finished.  For  his  sustentation, 
however,  he  might  receive  what  was  necessary  from  the 
property  of  the  Church.  To  this  letter  also  an  appendix 
of  canons  was  added.2  The  further  course  of  the  affair  is 

1  This  is  the  unnamed  document  which  begins  with  the  words,  Ecce  manifes- 
tissime  constat,  in  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  811  sqq.,  and  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1156  sqq. 
Cf.  Histoire  litttraire  de  la  France,  t.  iii.  p.  222  sq. 

2  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  856  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1179. 

SECOND  SYNOD  AT  ORLEANS,  A.D.   533.  185 

SEC.  247.  Second  Synod  at  Orleans,  A.D.  533. 

In  the  preface  to  the  minutes  of  their  Synod,  the  bishops 
who  were  present  at  the  second  Synod  of  Orleans  declare  that 
they  had  come  together  at  the  command  of  the  glorious  Kings, 
in  order  to  take  measures  for  the  observance  of  the  Catholic 
law.  By  that  expression  they  understand  the  yet  living 
sons  of  Chlodwig  (Clovis)  the  Great,  Childebert  I.,  Chlotar 
(Lothaire)  I.,  and  Theoderic  I. 

A  still  closer  indication  of  the  time  is  contained  in  the 
subscription  of  the  president  of  the  Synod,  Archbishop 
Honoratus  of  Bourges  (Biturica),  since  it  bears  date,  Die  ix, 
Kal.  Julias  anno  xxii.  domni  Childeberti  regis.  This  means  June 
23,  533,  as  King  Chlodwig  died  in  November  5 II.1  From 
what  has  been  said  it  may  be  seen,  that  we  have  here  before 
us  a  kind  of  Prankish  national  Synod,  since  archbishops  and 
bishops  were  present  from  the  most  different  kingdoms  and 
provinces.  In  the  whole  there  were  twenty- six  prelates,  and 
five  priests  as  representatives  of  absent  bishops.  Besides 
Archbishop  Honoratus  of  Bourges,  who  presided,  we  meet 
besides  the  Metropolitans  Injuriosus  of  Tours,  Flavius  of 
Eouen,  Aspasius  of  Eauze  (Elosensis),  and  Julian  of  Vienne. 
Another  archbishop  was  represented  by  the  priest  Orbatus. 
The  following  bishops  also  subscribed  : — Leontius  of  Orleans, 
Eleutherius  of  Auxerre,  Chronopius  of  Perigueux  (Petricorium, 
in  the  province  of  Bordeaux,  whose  metropolitan  was  not 
present),  Lupicinus  of  Angouleme  (Ecolisma  or  Icolisma,  also 
in  the  province  of  Bordeaux),  Agrippinus  of  Autun  (Civitas 
j&duorum,  in  the  province  of  Lyons,  whose  metropolitan  was 
not  present),  Otherius  of  Chartres  (Carnutum),  Eumerius  of 
Nantes,  Amelius  of  Paris,  Sustratius  of  Cahors,  Perpetuus  of 
Avranches,  Praesidius  of  Convenae  (now  S.  Bertrand  on  the 
Garonne,  in  the  province  Elusa  or  Eauze),  Passivius  of  Seez 
(Sagi),  Proculcianus  of  Ausch  (Auscii),  and  Lauto  of  Coutances 

1  Cf.  Pagi,  ad  ann.  514,  n.  7-9,  and  ad  ann.  536,  n.  17.  Baronius  (ad  ann. 
514,  n.  21,  and  536,  n.  124),  Binius  in  Mansi  (t.  viii.  p.  840),  and  Mansi  (I.e.), 
by  mistake  transpose  the  death  of  Chlodwig  to  the  year  514,  and  therefore  our 
Synod  to  the  year  536.  Cf.  the  third  Synod  of  Orleans  (sec.  251,  below),  where 
the  twenty-seventh  year  of  Childebert  is  declared  to  be  identical  with  the  fourth 
year  after  the  consulate  of  Paulinus  the  younger,  i.e.,  with  the  year  538. 


(Coiistantid).  Seven  bishops  :  Importunus,  Callistus,  Marcus, 
Eusebius,  Clarentius,  Innocent,  and  Marcellus,  did  not  append 
the  names  of  their  sees.  The  representatives  of  the  absent, 
beside  Orbatus  already  named,  were  the  priests  Asclepius  for 
Bishop  Adelphius  of  Poitiers  (instead  of  Eauracensi  we 
should  read  Ratiatensi,  i.e.  Pictaviensi,  as  Sirmond  remarked), 
Lawrence  for  Bishop  Gallus  of  Clermont  in  Auvergne,  Eledius 
for  Bishop  Sebastius,  and  Prsesidonius  for  Bishop  Artemius. 
The  sees  of  the  last  two  are  not  named.1 

The  Synod  drew  up  twenty-one  canons  as  follows : — 

1.  No  bishop  must  be  absent  from  the  Council  or  from 
the  consecration  of  a  bishop  (in  his  province). 

2.  A  provincial  Council  shall  be  held  annually. 

3.  No  bishop  must  receive  anything  for  the  consecration 
of  another  bishop,  or  of  any  other  cleric. 

4.  If  anyone  has  obtained  the  priesthood  for  money,  he 
must  be  deposed. 

5.  If  a  bishop  is  invited  to  bury  a  colleague,  he  must  not 
seek  to  free  himself  by  false  subterfuges.     He  must  demand 
nothing  but  his  expenses  for  his  trouble. 

6.  When  he  comes  to  the  burial,  he  must  call  the  priests, 
enter  with  them  the  church  house  (the  bishop's  residence), 
take   an   inventory   of   all  that   is   there,   and  intrust  some 
responsible  person  with  the  care  of  it. 

7.  In   regard  to   the   ordination  of  a  metropolitan,  the 
manner  which  has  gone  out  of  use  shall  be  re-established. 
After    the    metropolitan    has    been    elected    by    the    com- 
provincial   bishops,    the   clergy  (of    his   diocese)    and    (vel)2 
the    laity,    he    shall    be     ordained    by    all    the    assembled 

8.  If  a  deacon  is  brought  into  captivity,  and  during  this 
time  marries,  he  must,  after  his  return,  be  deposed  from  all 
ministry  in  the  Church.     Yet,  if  he  has  done  penance  for  his 
offence,  he  may  again  receive  the  communion. 

9.  No  priest  may,  without  permission  of  the  bishop,  live 

1  Archbishops  and  bishops  subscribed  after  one  another,  without  regard  to 
the  rank  of  the  churches.     So  at  the  Synod  of  Clermont,  A.D.  535.     Cf.  Remi 
Ceillier,  I.e.  t.  xvi.  p.  712. 

2  In  later  Latin  vel  is  often  used.     Cf.  Du  Cange,  Glossar.  s.v.  vel. 

SECOND  SYNOD  AT  ORLEANS,  A.D.   533.  187 

with  people  of  the  world.     If   he  nevertheless  does  so,  he 
must  be  excluded  ab  officii  communione.1 

10.  No  one  must  marry  his  stepmother. 

11.  Matrimonial  contracts  (matrimonia  contracta),i$.  sick- 
ness happens,  may  not  be  given  up  at  the  will  (of  the  parties). 

12.  If  anyone  has  made  a  vow  to  sing,  or  to  drink,  or  to 
do  anything  else  improper  in  the  church,  he  must  not  keep 
it ;  for  by  such  vows  God  is  rather  offended  than  pleased  by 
their  observance.2 

13.  Abbots,  martyrarii,3  monks,  and  priests  must  exhibit 
no  apostolia  (letters  of  peace). 

14.  Clerics  who  neglect  their  office,  and  do  not  come  to 
church  when  duty  requires,  must  be  deprived  of  the  dignity 
of  their  office. 

15.  For  those  who  are  executed  for  any  crime  oblationes 
defmictorum  may  be  allowed,  but  not  for  suicides. 

16.  No  one  must  be  ordained  priest  or  deacon,  if  he  has 
no  education,  or  does  not  understand  how  to  baptize. 

17.  Women  who,  in  opposition  to  the  canons  (sec.  231), 
have  received  the  benediction  as  deaconesses,  if  they  marry 
again,  must  be  excommunicated.     If,  at  the  admonition  of  the 
bishop,  they  give  up  such  a  union,  they  may,  after  undergoing 
penance,  be  admitted  to  communion  again, 

1 8.  To  no  woman  must  henceforth  the  lenedictio  diaconalis 
be  given,  because  of  the  weakness  of  the  sex. 

19.  No  Christian  must  marry  a  Jewess,  and  conversely. 
If  any  such  union  has  been  accomplished,  it  must  be  dissolved 
on  pain  of  excommunication. 

20.  Catholics  who  return  to  the  worship  of  idols  or  eat 
food  offered  to  idols,  must  be  dismissed  from  Church  member- 
ship.    So  also  with  those  who  eat  of  animals  which  have  died, 
or  which  have  been  killed  by  other  animals. 

1  The  expression  communio  ojficii  I  have  found  nowhere  else,  not  even  in  Du 
Cange,  and  none  of  those  who  treat  of  this  Synod  has  given  an  explanation  of  it. 
It  certainly  means :  such  an  one  shall  not  be  excommunicated,  but  from  the 
exercise  of  the  priestly  office  ;  he  shall  have  no  more  part  in  priestly  functions. 

2  These  were  pagan  and  superstitious  vows. 

3  The  martyrarius  is  the  custos  martyrii,  i.e.  the  church  of  a  martyr.     Cf. 
Du  Cange,  s.v.  Afartyrarius ;  and  Dictionary  of  Christian  Antiquities,  under 
Apostolium  and  Martyrium. 


21.  Abbots  who  despise  the  prescriptions  of  the  bishops, 
must  not  be  allowed  at  communion.  Bishops,  however,  who 
do  iiot  regard  these  canons,  must  know  that  they  will  be 
responsible  before  God  and  their  brethren.1 

SEC.  248.  Synod  at  Carthage,  A.D.  535. 

The  Emperor  Justinian  the  Great  had,  in  the  year  534, 
sent  his  general  Belisarius,  with  600  ships  and  35,000 
soldiers,  into  Africa,  to  put  an  end  to  the  Vandal  kingdom. 
In  consequence,  being  freed  from  the  long  and  heavy 
oppression  of  the  Arians,  there  met  together  217  African 
bishops,  under  the  presidency  of  Archbishop  Reparatus  of 
Carthage  (successor  of  Boniface),  in  the  year  535,  in  an 
African  general  Council  in  the  Basilica  Fausti  at  Carthage, 
which  city  had,  in  honour  of  the  Emperor,  received  the 
surname  of  Justiniana.  In  that  church,  which  Hunneric 
had  previously  wrested  from  the  Catholics,  there  were  many 
relics  of  the  martyrs,  and  the  bishops  believed  that  it  was 
owing  to  their  intercession  that  they  had  been  freed  from 
their  oppressors.  For  a  hundred  years,  they  said,  there  had 
been  no  African  general  Council  held,  and  all  the  assembled 
bishops  were  now  filled  with  joy,  and  full  of  thanks  to  God 
for  this  meeting.  The  ordinances  of  Niceea  were  read,  and  the 
question  then  arose,  whether  those  who  had  been  Arian  priests 
(of  the  Vandals)  should,  after  reception  of  the  orthodox 
doctrine,  be  left  in  their  offices,  or  should  only  be  taken  into 
lay  communion.  All  the  members  of  the  Synod  inclined  to 
the  latter  view;  yet  they  would  not  decide,  but  resolved 
unanimously  to  apply  to  Pope  John  11.  for  guidance,  not  only 
on  this  matter,  but  on  the  second  question,  whether  those  who 
had  been  baptized  as  children  of  Arians  might  be  admitted 
into  the  clerical  order. 

To  this  end  they  addressed  a  synodal  letter  to  the  Pope, 
and  sent  therewith  two  bishops  of  their  number,  Caius  and 
Peter,  with  the  Carthaginian  deacon  Liberatus  to  Rome.  At 
the  close  of  their  letter  they  add,  that  it  had  often  come  to 

1  Mansi.   t.   viii.   p.   836  sqq. ;    Hardouin,  t.  ii.    p.   1174  sqq. ;    Sirmond, 
Concilia  Gallice,  t.  i.  p.  228  sq. 

SYNOD  AT   CARTHAGE,  A.D.  535.  189 

pass  that  African  bishops  had,  in  an  arbitrary  manner,  left 
their  churches,  and  betaken  themselves  to  lands  beyond  the 
sea  (Italy).  The  Church  had  tolerated  this  in  that  unhappy 
period  (of  Vandal  supremacy).  For  the  future,  however,  any 
bishop  or  priest,  or  other  cleric,  if  he  should  come  without  a 
letter  of  peace,  and  could  not  show  that  he  was  sent  for  the 
service  of  the  Church,  ought  to  be  regarded  in  the  same 
manner  as  a  heretic,  and  not  received  into  communion  by  the 

When  the  African  deputies  arrived  in  Eome,  John  n.  was 
already  dead.  Therefore  his  successor,  Agapetus  I.,  answered 
the  inquiries  of  the  Synod,  and  added  to  his  letter  the  ancient 
canons  which  contained  the  ecclesiastical  rules  on  the  points 
in  question.  This  appendix  is  lost.  In  the  letter  itself,  how- 
ever, the  Pope  declares  that  (a)  a  converted  Arian  ought 
never  to  be  advanced  to  an  ecclesiastical  office,  whatever  his 
age  might  have  been  (i.e.  even  if  he  were  a  child),  when  he 
was  spotted  with  that  plague ;  and  that  (&)  their  office  in  the 
Church  could  not  be  left  to  the  converted  Arian  priests,  but 
that  they  should  receive  support  from  the  property  of  the 
Church.  Finally,  the  Pope  fully  conceded  the  wish  of  the 
Synod  in  regard  to  the  clergy  travelling  without  leave,  as  it 
was  in  accordance  with  the  canons.2 

Besides  this,  we  possess  a  part  of  the  minutes  of  the 
Synod  of  Carthage  in  which  the  relation  of  the  monasteries 
to  the  bishops  is  treated.  Bishop  Felician  of  Euspe,  the 
successor  of  S.  Fulgentius,  brought  forward  that  his  predecessor 
had  founded  a  monastery  in  the  city  of  Ruspe,  and  he  prayed 
now  that  something  might  be  settled  in  the  matter  of  monas- 
teries. Thereupon  Bishop  Felix  of  Zactara  (or  Zattara),  in 
the  ecclesiastical  province  of  Numidia,  declared :  "  In  regard  to 
the  monastery  of  the  Abbot  Peter,  whose  abbot  is  now 
Fortunatus,  they  must  abide  by  the  decisions  of  the  Synod 
under  Boniface  (see  above,  sec.  238);  but  the  other  monas- 
teries should  enjoy  the  fullest  liberty  as  far  as  the  Councils 

1  The  synodal  letters  of  the  Africans  to  Pope  John  n.  in  Mansi,  t.   viii. 
p.  808  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1154. 

2  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  843 ;  Baronius,  ad  ann.  535,  n.  37  ;  this  document  is 
wanting  in  Hardouin. 


allow.  If  they  wish  that  clergy  should  be  ordained  or 
oratories  consecrated,  this  shall  be  done  by  the  bishop  of  the 
place  or  of  the  neighbourhood.  In  other  respects,  however, 
the  monasteries  are  independent  of  the  bishop,  and  have  no 
duties  to  render  to  him.  Moreover,  the  bishop  must  not 
erect  a  chair  (cathedra)  for  himself  in  any  monastery,  nor 
must  he  ordain  anyone  without  consent  of  the  abbot.  When 
the  abbot  dies,  the  whole  society  (of  the  monastery)  shall 
elect  a  new  one ;  and  the  bishop  shall  in  no  way  usurp  the 
right  of  election.  If  a  dispute  arises  respecting  the  election 
(among  the  monks),  other  abbots  shall  decide ;  if  the  dispute 
continues,  the  matter  shall  be  brought  before  the  primate  of 
the  province.  At  divine  service  the  bishop  should  read  aloud 
(from  the  diptychs),  among  the  others  whom  he  has  ordained, 
also  the  monks  of  his  district  whom  he  has  ordained."1  We 
do  not  know  whether  all  of  this  was  merely  the  private 
opinion  of  Bishop  Felix,  or  whether  it  was  made  a  decree  by 
the  Synod. 

Finally,  the  Synod  send  an  embassy  to  the  Emperor 
Justinian,  to  entreat  of  him  the  restoration  of  those  posses- 
sions and  rights  of  the  Churches  in  Africa  which  the  Vandals 
had  taken  away.  The  Emperor  gave  consent  to  this 
request  in  the  edict  to  Salomo,  his  Prtefectus  Praetorio  for 

SEC.  249.  Synod  at  Clermont,  in  Auvergne  (Concilium 
Arvernense),  A.D.  535. 

With  the  assent  of  King  Theodebert  of  Austrasia,  a 
grandson  of  Chlodwig  the  Great,  fifteen  bishops  assembled  at  a 
Synod  in  the  church  at  Clermont,  in  the  country  of  the  Arverni. 
At  the  head  stood  Archbishop  Honoratus  of  Bourges,  whom 
we  have  already  learnt  to  know  at  the  second  Synod  of 
Orleans.  We  also  meet  here  Bishops  Flavius  of  Eeims, 
Nicetius  of  Treves  (Trier),  Hesperius  of  Metz,  Desideratus  of 
Verdun,  Gramma ticus  of  Vindonissa,and  Domitianus  Coloniensis, 
that  is,  of  Coin  (Cologne),  or,  as  other  manuscripts  read, 

1  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  841  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1177. 

•  Justinian!  Novella  36  and  37  ;  also  printed  in  Baronius,  ad  ann,  535,  n.  43. 

SYNOD  AT  CLERMONT,   IN   AUVERGNE,  A.D.   535.  191 

Ecdesice  Tungrorum,  i.e.  of  Tungern.1  We  see  that  Germany 
had  here  a  good  many  representatives.  As  usual,  the  ancient 
canons  were  enjoined,  and  some  new  ones  published. 

1.  No  bishop  shall  bring  forward  at  the  Synod  any  other 
subject  until  the  transactions  with  reference  to  the  improve- 
ment of  morals,  and  what  concerns  the  salvation  of  the  soul, 
are  ended. 

2.  A  bishop  shall  be  elected  by  the  clergy  and  laity, 
with    the  consent    of    the    metropolitan.     If  anyone   forces 
himself  in  through  favour  of  the  powerful,  or  through  cunning, 
he  shall  be  excommunicated. 

3.  Corpses  must  not  be  covered  with  palls   and   other 
church  effects  (ministeria  divina).2 

4.  The  powerful  of  this  world  must  not  keep  disobedient 

5.  If  anyone  allows  himself   to  be  presented  by  Kings 
with  anything  that  belongs  to  the  Church,  he  shall  be  ex- 
communicated, and  lose  the  gift. 

6.  The  body  of  a  sacerdos  (bishop)  must  not  be  covered 
with  the  cloak  which   is   usually  placed  over  the  Body  of 
Christ  (opertorium  dominici  corporis),  otherwise,  if  this  cloth 
is  given  back  to  the  Church,  the  altar  would  be  dishonoured. 

7.  No  church  furniture  may  be  lent  for  the  adornment 
of  marriages. — Received  into  the  Corpus  jur.  can.  c.  43  ;  De 
consecrat.  Dist.  i. 

8.  Jews  must  not  be  appointed  as  judges  over  a  Christian 

9.  No  bishop  may  seize  the  parishes  of  another. 

10.  No  bishop  may  receive  a  foreign  cleric  without  the 
assent  of  his  bishop,  or  advance  him  to  higher  orders. 

11.  Incestuous  marriages  are  forbidden. 

12.  If  anyone  is  ordained  deacon  or  priest,  he  must  not 
continue  matrimonial  intercourse.     He  becomes  a  brother  of 
his  wife.     As,  however,  some,  inflamed  by  desire,  have  cast  off 
the  girdle  of  the  warfare  (of  Christ),  and  have  returned  to 

1  Cf.  the  note  of  Sirmond  in  Concil.  Gallice,  t.  i.  p.  606  sq.  ;  also  in  Mansi,  t. 
viii.  p.  867.     Wiltsch,  Kirchl.  Geographic  u.  Statistik,  Bd.  i.  S.  103,  Anm.  11. 

2  On  ministeria  divina= church  effects  in  general,  cf.  Du  Cange,  Glossar. 
S.T.  minislerium  sacrum,  t.  iv.  ed.  Ben.  p.  784  sqq. 


matrimonial  intercourse,  it  is  ordained   that  such  must  lose 
their  dignity  for  ever. 

13.  Whoever  takes  from  the  Church  anything  which  has 
been  bequeathed  by  writing  to  the  Church,  unless  he  restores 
it  immediately   at   the  exhortation   of   the   bishop,  must  be 
expelled  from  the  Christian  Church. 

14.  If  a  priest  or  deacon  does  not  belong  to  the  canon 
(  =  list  of  the  clergy)  of  the  city  or  of  the  rural  parishes,  but 
lives  in  a  villa  and  holds  divine  service  in  an  oratory,  he  must 
celebrate  the  festivals  of  Christmas,  Easter,  Pentecost,  and  the 
other  festivals  with  the  bishop  in  his  city.     So  also  must  the 
grown  up  citizens  go  to  the  bishop  of  the  city  at  the  festivals 
named,  otherwise  they  must,  at  these  feasts,  be  immediately 

15.  Bishops,  priests,  and  deacons  must  have  no   inter- 
course with  strange  women,  nor  allow  any  nun,  or  strange 
woman,  or  female  servant  (slave)  to  enter   their    chamber. 
Whoever  does  not  attend  to  this  is  excommunicated ;  and  the 
bishop  will  be  punished  if  he  does  not  punish  such  an  offence 
in  a  priest  or  deacon.1 

Some  other  canons,  said  to  belong  to  the  Synod  of  Cler- 
mont,  are  placed  by  Mansi  in  his  collection,  t.  viii  p.  8  6  5  sqq. 

Finally,  the  Synod  addressed  a  letter  to  the  Austrasian 
King  Theodebert,  praying  him  that  he  would  not  consent  that 
any  cleric  or  layman  who  possessed  property  in  another 
Prankish  kingdom  than  that  of  his  residence,  should  be 
deprived  of  it.  It  should  suffice  that  he  paid  tribute  to  the 
lord  of  his  country.2 

SEC.  250.  Synods  at  Constantinople  and  Jerusalem,  A.D.  536. 

After  the  death  of  the  Patriarch  Epiphanius,  to  which  we 
referred  above  (sec.  244),  Anthimus,  archbishop  of  Trapezont, 
was,  through  the  influence  of  the  Empress  Theodora,  the  consort 
of  Justinian,  raised  to  the  see  of  Constantinople.  Like  his 

1  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  859  sqq.  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1179  sqq.  ;  Sirmond,  C&ncil. 
Galliae,  t.  i.  p.  241  sqq.     Cf.  Remi  Ceillier,  t.  xvi.  p.  712  sqq.,  and  Hist,  litter, 
de  la  France,  t  iii.  p.  171  sqq. 

2  In  Mansi,  Hardouin,  and  Sirmond, 


patroness  he  leaned  to  Monophysitism,  and  the  Emperor 
Justinian,  in  spite  of  his  zeal  for  the  Chalcedonian  faith, 
was.  misled  by  Theodora  and  her  party  into  the  belief  that 
Anthimus  was  quite  orthodox.  Soon  after,  in  February  536, 
Pope  Agapetus  came  to  Constantinople,  whither  the  East 
Gothic  King  Theodatus  had  sent  him,  in  order  to  confer,  in 
his  name,  with  the  Emperor  on  political  affairs.  In  Con- 
stantinople the  Pope  refused  to  have  any  fellowship  with  the 
new  patriarch,  especially  as  the  latter  had  been  advanced  un- 
canonically  from  one  bishopric  to  another,  and,  after  a  violent 
collision  with  the  Emperor,  brought  it  about  that  Anthimus 
was  deposed,  and  the  priest  Mennas,  president  of  the  Hospice 
Samson,  in  accordance  with  the  wish  of  the  Emperor,  was 
raised  to  the  see,  March  13,  536.  The  Pope  himself  was  the 

It  is  generally  assumed,  on  the  authority  of  the  Byzantine 
historian  Theophanes,  that  the  deposition  of  Anthimus  and 
the  elevation  of  Mennas  was  decided  at  a  Constantinopolitan 
Synod;1  but  Mansi  (I.e.  p.  871  sq.)  contests  its  existence,  and 
seeks  to  show  that  it  was  not  until  after  the  deposition  of 
Anthimus  that  a  kind  of  Synod,  or  at  least  an  assembly  of 
Oriental  bishops  and  archimandrites,  took  place,  and  forwarded 
a  letter  to  the  Pope,  who  was  then  still  in  Constantinople.2 
They  asked  in  this  that  the  Pope  would  give  Anthimus  a 
period  of  time  within  which  he  must  clear  himself  of  the 
suspicion  of  heresy,  or  be  disqualified  from  holding  the  bishop- 
ric of  Trapezont.  The  Pope  acquiesced,  suspended  Anthimus 
for  the  present,  and,  from  his  sickbed,  forwarded  the  memorial 
in  question  to  the  Emperor.  As  the  Pope  died  April  6  or 
22,  536,  at  Constantinople,  the  matter  could  not  be  completed 
until  after  his  death,  and  this  by  a  new  Synod  of  Constantin- 

1  Cf.  Pagi,  ad  aim.  356,  n.  5,  6  ;  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  869  sq. 

2  The  existence  of  this  assembly  is  clear  from  a  memorial  of  the  monks  of 
Constantinople  and  Jerusalem  to  the  following  Synod  (Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  888  ; 
Hardouin,  t.  ii.    p.    1195).     They  say:  "The  bishops  assembled   here   from 
Palestine  and  other  countries  in  the  East,  etc.,  and  we  ourselves,  request  that 
Anthimus  shall  clear  himself  of  all  suspicion  of  heresy  before  the  papal  see." 
The  Libellus  Synodicus  says  that  Pope  Agapetus  deposed  Anthimus  at  a  Synod 
at  Constantinople  ;  but  its  information  on  this  subject  is  full  of  errors.     Mansi, 
t.  viii.  p.  1161  ;  Hardouin,  t.  v.  p.  1534. 

IV.  13 


ople,  which  has  become  famous,  held  in  May  and  June  536, 
which  has  left  us  very  numerous  and  comprehensive  Acts.  These 
were  first  edited  by  Severinus  Binius  in  1618,  after  a  codex  in 
the  library  at  Heidelberg,  which,  however,  was  in  many  places 
defective,  and  in  others  erroneous  and  incoherent.  A  much 
better  text  was  discovered  in  the  same  year,  1618,  by  the 
learned  Jesuit  Fronton  le  Due ;  but  he,  too,  left  a  good  deal  to 
be  gleaned  by  Labbe,  a  member  of  his  own  order.  To  the 
industry  of  the  latter  we  owe  the  present  text. 

The  Acts  of  the  first  session,  on  the  2nd  of  May  536, 
declare  that  the  Synod  was  held  at  the  command  of  the 
Emperor.  All  their  sessions,  five  in  number,  took  place  in  the 
eastern  hall  of  S.  Mary's  Church,  which  lay  in  the  neighbour- 
hood of  the  great  church.  The  Patriarch  Mennas  was 
president.  On  his  right  sat  five  Italian  bishops,  who  had 
been  sent  at  an  earlier  period  by  the  Apostolic  Chair  to 
Constantinople,  and  had  remained  there  with  Agapettis.  They 
were  Sabinus  of  Canusium,  Epiphanius  of  Ecbanum,  Asterius 
of  Salerno,  Kusticus  of  Faesulse,  and  Leo  of  Nola.  Besides 
these,  there  sat  on  the  right  hand  twenty-three,  on  the  left 
twenty-four,  metropolitans  and  bishops  from  the  most 
different  parts  of  the  Byzantine  kingdom.  The  most  celebrated 
among  them  was  Hypatius  of  Ephesus.  Also  on  the  left 
were  two  deacons,  two  notaries,  and  several  other  clerics, 
whom  Agapetus  had  brought  with  him  to  Constantinople ; 
moreover,  the  representatives  of  the  absent  patriarchs  of 
Antioch  (Theopolis)  and  Jerusalem,  and  of  the  metropolitans 
of  Caesarea,  Ancyra,  and  Corinth.  Finally,  the  clergy  of 
Constantinople  were  present. 

After  all  had  taken  their  places,  the  deacon  and  over- 
notary  Euphemius  brought  forward  the  following :  "  The 
priest  Marinianus  (Marianus),  president  (rjyov/jievo^  of  the 
Dalmatius  monastery,  also  exarch  of  all  the  monasteries  of 
Constantinople,  and  the  monks  from  Antioch  and  Jerusalem, 
who  are  here  present  at  the  residence,  have  presented  a 
petition  to  the  Emperor,  and  he  has,  in  accordance  with  the 
wish  of  the  petitioners,  commanded  the  reading  of  the  petition 
in  the  present  assembly,  so  that  they  may  decide  what  is  in 
accordance  with  the  laws  of  the  Church.  The  monks  in 


question  and  the  Referendar  Theodore  assigned  to  them  by 
the  Emperor  now  request  permission  to  appear  before  the 
Council." l 

The  Patriarch  Mennas  granted  this  request.  More  than 
eighty  abbots  and  monks  from  Constantinople,  Antioch,  and 
Palestine  came  in,  and  the  imperial  Referendar  presented  the 
document  which  they  had  addressed  to  Justinian.  The 
patriarch  had  it  immediately  read  by  a  deacon.  Its  principal 
contents  are  as  follows :  "  Anthimus  (the  deposed  archbishop 
of  Constantinople),  Severus  (the  previous  patriarch  of 
Antioch),  Peter  (of  A'pamea,  cf.  sec.  233),  and  Zoaras  (a 
Eutychian  monk)  had  stirred  up  dissensions,  had  pronounced 
anathemas  on  the  saints,  and  even  in  Constantinople  had 
erected  profane  altars  and  baptisteries  over  against  the  true 
altars,  etc.  Anthimus  in  particular,  formerly  bishop  of 
Trapezont,  had  for  a  long  time  left  his  church,  and,  under  the 
semblance  of  an  ascetic  manner  of  life,  had  united  himself 
with  the  heretics  (Monophysites),  by  whose  help  he  attained 
to  the  see  of  Constantinople  in  a  thoroughly  uncanonical 
manner.  Agapetus  of  Rome  had,  in  union  with  the 
Emperor,  deposed  him,  and  advanced  Mennas  to  his  place. 
Somewhat  later,  in  union  with  the  bishops  of  Palestine  and 
other  Oriental 2  countries  assembled  at  Constantinople,  we 
requested  (the  Pope),  in  a  new  memorial,  that  Anthimus 
should  be  required  to  clear  himself  of  all  suspicion  of  heresy 
and  resume  his  see  in  Trapezont ;  and,  if  he  could  not  do  the 
first,  then  he  should  be  altogether  deposed  from  the  priest- 
hood. This  request  Agapetus  had  anticipated,  had  suspended 
Anthimus  with  the  other  previously-named  heretics  (Severus, 
etc.)  from  all  priestly  functions  until  they  had  done  penance, 
and  had  presented  the  memorial  of  the  monks  and  bishops  to 
the  Emperor.  The  Emperor,  they  prayed,  would  not  think 
lightly  of  the  judgment  of  this  man  who  had  died  in  the 
meantime,  but  would  accomplish  it,  and  free  the  world  from 
the  plague  of  Anthimus  and  the  other  heretics  named."  3 

1  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  877  sqq.  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1187  sqq. 

2  This  is  the  passage  which  proves  the  existence  of  one  of  the  previous 
Synods  at  Constantinople  at  this  period.     See  the  note  before  last. 

3  Mansi,  t.  viii.  pp.  881-890  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1190  sqq. 


Upon  this  a  report  (StSao-icaXiKov),  addressed  by  the  same 
monks  to  the  Patriarch  Mennas,  was  read,  in  which  they  make 
him  acquainted  with  all  their  steps  against  Anthimus,  and 
with  his  history,  which  we  already  know  —  how  he  had 
left  the  bishopric  of  Trapezont,  had  hypocritically  begun  an 
ascetic  life,  had  united  himself  with  the  heretics,  and  had 
usurped  the  see  of  Constantinople.  They,  the  monks,  had 
repeatedly  requested  him  to  declare  whether  he  agreed  with 
the  Council  of  Chalcedon  and  Pope  Leo,  and  anathematised 
Eutyches  and  Dioscurus.  God  had  now  awakened  Agapetus, 
and  he  drove  Anthimus  from  the  episcopal  chair  of  Constan- 
tinople and  consecrated  Mennas,  who  had  been  elected  by  the 
Emperor,  and  the  clergy  of  the  Church,  and  other  distinguished 
men.  Somewhat  later  they  had  presented  to  the  Pope  the 
now  well-known  new  memorial  respecting  Anthimus ;  but 
Agapetus  had  died,  and  they  had  now  turned  to  the  Emperor 
again,  and  on  this  account  the  present  Synod  was  held.1 

The  next  document  that  was  read  was  the  letter  which 
the  monks,  some  time  after  the  deposition  of  Anthimus,  had 
addressed  to  the  Pope.  They  call  him  there  the  "  oecumenical 
patriarch,"  and  complain  of  the  Acephaloi  and  the  schismatics, 
who  had  got  up  mischief  against  the  Churches,  the  Pope,  and 
the  Emperor.  In  particular,  the  Monophysite  monks  had 
knocked  out  an  eye  from  a  likeness  of  the  Emperor;  and  one 
of  them,  the  Persian  Isaac,  had  struck  it  with  a  stick,  and  at 
the  same  time  uttered  insulting  words  against  the  Emperor, 
really  against  God,  for  whose  cause  he  had  insulted  the  like- 
ness. When  the  stick  broke,  he  had  torn  the  painted  linen 
and  cast  it  into  the  fire.  These  heretics  had  also  insinuated 
themselves  into  the  houses  of  several  persons  of  distinction, 
and  had  led  astray  women  ;  had  set  up  in  their  own  dwellings 
and  in  the  suburbs  false  altars  and  baptisteries,  protected  by 
powerful  persons  of  the  very  house  of  the  Emperor  (i.e.  by 
the  Empress  Theodora).  This  the  Pope  should  not  endure ; 
but,  as  he  had  formerly  risen  against  Anthimus,  and  driven 

1  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  892  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1198.  That  this  2/$«<r*aA<xov  was 
addressed  to  Mennas  is  shown  by  its  contents,  particularly  near  the  middle,  the 
passage  :  T>I»  S«  vftiripav  ^axa^oTxra,  *.  <r.x.  Walch  incorrectly  maintains  that  it 
was  an  oral  address  by  Abbot  Marianus.  Walch,  Ketzerhist.  Bd.  vii.  S.  149. 


that  wolf  away,  so  ought  he  now  to  make  representations  to 
the  Emperor,  and  drive  away  the  offenders.  The  Emperor, 
as  was  known,  had  forbidden  these  outside  baptisms  and 
services  (in  private  oratories,  etc.) ;  but  in  spite  of  this,  Zoaras 
(a  Eutychian  monk)  had  baptized  not  a  few  at  the  last 
Easter  festival,  and  among  them  children  of  courtiers.1 

After  this  the  story  of  Anthimus  is  told,  his  attaining 
to  the  see  of  Constantinople,  and  his  deposition  by  the  Pope 
related,  and  the  latter  adjured  by  the  Holy  Trinity  and  by 
the  Apostle  Peter,  etc.,  to  appoint  a  fixed  time  to  Anthimus, 
within  which  he  should  declare  his  orthodoxy  in  writing  and 
return  to  his  church  at  Trapezont  which  he  had  left,  if  he  did 
not  wish  even  to  be  deposed.  The  Pope  should  also  cite 
before  him  all  the  other  numerous  bishops,  clergy,  and  archi- 
mandrites who  held  with  Anthimus,  and  punish  them  in 
accordance  with  the  canons,  particularly  Severus,  Peter,  and 
Zoaras.  Finally,  they  mention  that  not  only  the  Eutychians 
but  also  the  Nestorians  had  sought  to  rend  the  Church.2 

A  similar  letter  had  been  addressed  to  the  Pope  by  the 
bishops  of  the  Oriental  dioceses  assembled  in  Constantinople, 
together  with  those  of  Palestine  arid  the  representatives  of 
others ;  and  this  too  was  read ; 3  also  the  letter  which 
Agapetus,  after  the  deposition  of  Anthimus,  had  sent  to  the 
Patriarch  Peter  of  Jerusalem  and  his  bishops.  He  remarks 
in  this  that  Anthimus  had  not  only  uncanonically  got 
possession  of  the  see  of  Constantinople,  but,  still  more,  that 
he  persisted  in  the  heresy  of  Eutyches,  and  had  not  allowed 
himself  to  be  brought  back  by  the  Pope  to  the  right  doctrine. 
He  had  therefore  declared  him  unworthy  to  be  called 
Catholic  and  priest.  His  associates  had  also  been  condemned 
by  the  sentence  of  the  apostolic  see.  The  bishopric  of  Con- 
stantinople, however,  had  been  obtained  by  Mennas,  a  very 
excellent  man,  the  respect  for  whom  had  been  heightened  by 
this,  that  the  Pope  himself  had  ordained  him,  a  case  which 
had  not  occurred  since  the  times  of  the  apostles.  But 
Mennas  had  been  elected  by  the  Emperor,  with  the  assent  of 

1  Walch.  Ketzcrhist.  Bd.  vii.  S.  150,  makes  this  "children  of  slaves." 
-  Mansi,  t.  viii.  pp.  896-912  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  pp.  1203-1217. 
3  Maiisi,  t.  viii.  pp.  913-921 ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  pp.  1217-1224. 


the  clergy  and  laity.  Agapetus  is  surprised  that  Peter  of 
Jerusalem  had  given  no  notice  to  the  Pope  of  the  uncanonical 
elevation  of  Anthimus  to  the  throne  of  Constantinople,  and 
had  even  consented  to  it,  and  he  hopes  that  the  bishops  of 
Palestine  will  now  receive  none  of  those  whom  the  Pope 

Finally,  Mennas  declared  that  he  intended  to  send  a 
deputation  of  seven  bishops,  priests,  and  notaries  to 
Anthimus,  in  order  to  inform  him  of  the  present  Synod,  and 
to  invite  him  to  appear  within  three  days  and  give  full 
assurance  with  regard  to  the  points  noted  (that  is,  in 
regard  to  his  orthodoxy 2).  The  first  session  thus  ter- 

At  the  second  session,  on  May  6,  in  the  same  place, 
the  monks  again  petitioned  to  be  admitted,  and  after  they 
were  introduced,  the  minutes  of  the  first  session  were  read  in 
their  presence,  and  the  deputies  of  the  Synod  who  had  been 
sent  to  Anthimus  related  that  they  had  sought  him  in  the 
most  different  places,  but  had  nowhere  found  him.  The 
Patriarch  Mennas  then  allowed  him  a  further  respite  of  three 
days,  and  commissioned  seven  other  bishops  and  clerics  to 
seek  him  and  summons  him  to  the  Synod.3 

The  third  session,  on  May  10,  was  exactly  like  the 
second.  The  petition  of  the  monks  for  admission  was  again 
granted,  the  minutes  of  the  previous  transactions  were  read, 
and  the  deputies  related  that  they  had  not  been  able  to 
find  Anthimus  anywhere.  The  Patriarch  Mennas  then 
allowed  a  third  and  last  respite  of  ten  days.  If  within  that 
time  he  had  not  cleared  himself  of  the  suspicion  of  heresy,  he 
would  be  condemned  in  accordance  with  the  sentence  pro- 
nounced against  him  by  Agapetus.  Again  seven  deputies 
were  appointed  to  seek  him,  and  the  summons  at  the  same 
time  ordered  to  be  publicly  proclaimed.  In  accordance  with 
this  resolution  a  public  letter  was  addressed  to  Anthimus. 
This  letter  occurs  in  the  Acts  of  the  fourth  session.  It  is 
dated  May  15,  and  sent  out  by  the  "oacumenical  patriarch" 

1  Mansi,  t.  viii.  pp.  921-924  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1225  sq. 

2  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  925  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1227. 

8  Mansi,  t.  viii.  pp.  925-936 ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  pp.  1227-1235. 


Mennas  and  the  whole  Synod ; l  and  gives  only  a  period  of 
six  days,  as  it  was  not  published  until  the  deputies  had  spent 
several  days  in  vain  inquiries  after  Anthimus. 

After  they  had  given  a  sufficient  explanation  of  this  at 
the  fourth  session,  on  May  21,  Mennas  asked  both  the  Italian 
and  the  Greek  bishops  their  opinion.  The  former,  together 
with  the  Roman  deacons,  declared  in  few  words  that  they 
held  thoroughly  to  the  judgment  which  had  already  been 
pronounced  on  Anthimus  by  Agapetus.  Hypatius  of  Ephesus 
spoke  as  representative  of  the  Greek  bishops,  and  explained 
at  greater  length  the  offence  of  Anthimus,  particularly  that 
he  rejected  the  Chalcedonian  expression  ev  8vo  (^ucrecrt ;  and 
closed  with  the  decision  that  he  should  be  deposed  from  the 
bishopric  of  Trapezont  and  all  ecclesiastical  dignities  in 
accordance  with  the  judgment  of  the  Pope,  and  should  be 
deprived  of  the  name  of  Catholic.  This  sentence  was  imme- 
diately proclaimed  by  Mennas  in  a  solemn  address.  As 
frequently  happened,  there  then  broke  forth  numerous 
exclamations  in  honour  of  the  Emperor  and  patriarch,  and 
for  the  rejection  of  heretics. 

At  the  same  time  the  monks  of  Jerusalem  presented  a 
new  memorial,  and  wanted,  with  their  friends,  in  the  general 
excitement  to  have  this  publicly  read,  and  the  resolution 
taken  that  the  monasteries  inhabited  by  the  Eutychians,  and 
especially  by  Zoaras,  should  be  immediately  suppressed. 
Mennas,  however,  pacified  them  with  the  remark,  that  it 
would  be  necessary  first  to  acquaint  the  Emperor  with  this 
demand,  since  nothing  could  be  done  in  the  Church  against 
his  will  and  command  (/J,rj8ev  rcav  ev  rfj  ajiforaTrj  €KK\r)a-ia 
Kivov/jievwv  irapa  yvca/jirjv  ainov  real  tce\€vaiv  yeveadai).  At 
the  same  time,  as  compensation,  Mennas  added :  "  We  follow 
and  obey  the  apostolic  see,  with  which  he  has  communion,  as 
we  also  have ;  and  whom  he  condems  we  also  condemn."  At 
the  close  the  minutes  were  signed  by  all  the  bishops  present, 
together  with  the  Eoman  deacons  and  the  representatives  of 
absent  bishops.2 

Very  voluminous  are  the  Acts  of  the  fifth  session,  held 

1  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  960  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1254. 

-  Mansi,  t.  viii.  pp.  980-984  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  pp.  1246-1267. 


June  4,  536,  since  here  numerous  documents  were  read  and 
embodied.  The  first  was  a  memorial  addressed  to  the 
Emperor  by  Paul  of  Apamea  and  the  other  bishops  of  Syria 
II.,  in  which  they  set  forth  their  own  orthodoxy,  pronounced 
anathema  on  all  persons  of  Monophysite  opinions,  and 
particularly  on  Anthimus,  Severus  (of  Antioch),  and  Peter 
(formerly  bishop  of  Apamea),  and  besought  the  Emperor  to 
banish  the  heretics.1 

The  second  document,  also  addressed  to  the  Emperor, 
was  a  petition  of  the  monks  already  mentioned  of  Constan- 
tinople, Jerusalem,  Syria,  and  Palestine,  requesting  that  the 
Emperor  would  recommend  that  the  Patriarch  Mennas  and 
the  Synod  would  hold  a  new  session  for  the  punishment  of 
Severus,  Peter,  and  Zoaras.2  Then  followed  the  reading  of 
the  memorial,  which  these  same  monks  had  presented  to 
Mennas  at  the  end  of  the  fourth  session,  as  we  have  heard. 
They  express  therein  their  satisfaction  that  Anthimus  has  been 
condemned ;  but  remark  that  Satan  has  still  two  other  active 
assistants,  Severus  and  Peter,  who  had  pronounced  anathema 
on  the  Synod  of  Chalcedon  and  Pope  Leo,  had  persecuted  the 
orthodox,  had  maltreated  and  even  killed  many  of  them,  and 
had,  in  an  unlawful  manner,  got  possession  of  the  sees  of 
Antioch  and  Apamea.  Severus,  in  particular,  had  formerly 
served  demons  at  Berytus,  and  even  now  was  not  free  from 
heathenism ;  for  immediately  after  his  baptism  he  had  con- 
nected himself  with  the  Acephaloi,  and  as  their  head  had 
rejected  the  Henoticon.  Later,  after  he  had  usurped  the 
episcopal  chair,  he  had  made  believe  that  he  accepted  this, 
and  had  united  with  the  bishop  of  Alexandria,  Peter  Mongus. 
He  had  even  gone  so  far  as  to  inscribe  his  name  on  the 
diptychs  of  Antioch,  although  he  had  previously  himself 
demanded  his  banishment  from  Alexandria.  To  increase  the 
disorder,  he  had  then  also  received  Peter  of  Iberia,  and  had 
entered  into  fellowship  with  the  other  Acephaloi.3  He  had 
indeed  already  been  deposed  and  excommunicated  along  with 

1  Mansi,  t.  viii.  pp.  980-984  ;  Hardonin,  t.  ii.  pp.  1270-1274. 

2  Mansi,  t.  viii.  pp.  984-996  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  pp.  1274-1283. 

3  On  Peter  of  Iberia,  bishop  of  Gaza,  who  with  Timothy  .ffilurus  was  deposed 
and  exiled,  cf.  Walch,  Ketzerhist.  Bd.  vi.  S.  960. 


his  adherents ;  but  they  had  escaped  punishment  by  flight, 
and  later  on  had  ventured  to  lay  waste  the  city  of  Constantin- 
ople. Peter  of  Apamea  and  Severus  had  here  their  conven- 
ticles and  their  baptisteries,  had  led  many  astray,  and  also 
had  seduced  many  women,  and  all  this  had  been  proved  under 
Pope  Hormisdas  at  Rome.  Mennas  and  the  Synod  were 
therefore  requested  to  pronounce  anew  anathema  upon 
Severus,  Peter,  and  their  adherents,  and  also  on  the  Syrian 
Zoaras,  who  had  rejected  the  holy  Fathers,  had  held  unauthor- 
ised Church  service,  and  had  administered  baptism.  Besides 
this,  the  impious  books  of  Severus  should  be  condemned  to 
the  fire.1 

At  the  wish  of  the  Italian  bishops  and  of  the  Roman 
deacons  there  were  now  two  letters  read  of  Pope  Hormisdas, 
first  in  Latin,  and  then  in  a  Greek  translation.  The  one  of 
date  February  10,  518,  was  addressed  to  the  priests,  deacons, 
archimandrites,  and  all  the  orthodox  of  Syria  II.,  and  con- 
tained the  answer  to  a  complaint  of  the  orthodox  monks  of 
Syria,  who  had  been  cruelly  ill-treated  by  Severus  (in  the 
time  of  the  Emperor  Anastasius).  The  Pope  exhorted  them 
to  endurance  and  loyalty  to  the  faith,  and  warned  them 
against  the  adherents  of  Eutyches,  against  Dioscurus,  and 
Peter  of  Alexandria,  against  Acacius  of  Constantinople  (the 
originator  of  the  Henoticori),  against  Peter  of  Antioch, 
Severus,  Xenaias,  Peter  of  Apamea,  etc.2 

Somewhat  later  is  the  second  letter  of  Pope  Hormisdas, 
which  was  addressed,  March  26,  521,  after  the  restoration  of 
union  between  the  Greek  and  Roman  Churches,  to  the  new 
Patriarch  Epiphanius  of  Constantinople  (see  sec.  233),  and 
gave  him  instructions  as  to  the  manner  in  which  those  who 
had  been  misguided  by  the  Monophy sites,  particularly  by 
Severus,  should  be  reconciled  to  the  Church.3 

At  the  command  of  the  Patriarch  Mennas  the  notaries  of 
his  church  further  read  all  the  documents  connected  with 
this  subject,  which  had  been  received  and  deposited  in  the 
archives  of  Constantinople,  first,  the  complaint  which  the 

1  Mansi,  t.  viii.  pp.  996-1021  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  pp.  1283-1306. 

2  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  1024  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1306  sq. 

3  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  1029  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1311  sqq. 


clergy  of  Antioch  had  addressed,  in  the  year  518,  respecting 
the  intruder  Severus,  to  the  Patriarch  John  of  Constantinople 
and  the  Synod  assembled  around  him.  We  have  already 
referred  to  this  (sec.  233),  and  it  is  there  told  how  Severus, 
in  opposition  to  the  canons,  had  got  hold  of  the  see  of 
Antioch,  had  spoken  blasphemies  against  God,  rejected  the 
holy  Synods,  imprisoned  the  orthodox,  offered  impious  sacri- 
fices to  demons,  and  had  carried  away  and  appropriated  to 
himself  the  gold  and  silver  doves  which  hung  over  the  altars 
and  fonts  (KokvpftrjOpa),  because  he  did  not  like  to  represent 
the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  form  of  a  dove.1 

On  this  followed  the  Acts  of  the  just  mentioned  Synod  of 
Constantinople  of  A.D.  518:  (a)  Its  synodal  letter  to  the 
Patriarch  John,2  containing  the  decrees  of  the  Synod  in  refer- 
ence to  the  (b)  petition  of  the  monks  of  Constantinople.3 
(c)  The  third  document  describes  the  stormy  proceedings  at 
Constantinople,  which  preceded  the  calling  of  the  Synod  of 
A.D.  518,  by  which  the  people  had  demanded  with  all  decision 
the  anathema  upon  Severus.4  (d)  The  fourth  and  fifth  docu- 
ments are  two  letters  of  the  Patriarch  John  of  Constantinople, 
of  the  year  548,  to  the  Bishop  John  of  Jerusalem  and 
Epiphanius  of  Tyre,  in  which  he  requested  them  to  accede  to 
the  decrees  of  his  Synod,  and  so  to  the  anathema  on  Severus.5 
(e)  The  sixth  and  seventh  places  were  occupied  by  the 
answers  of  the  bishops  of  Jerusalem  and  Tyre,  who,  in  the 
name  of  the  provincial  Synods  held  by  them  had  agreed  to 
the  sentence  on  Severus  (A.D.  518),  and  fully  discussed  his 
offence.6  (/)  The  eighth  document,  without  superscription, 
gives  an  account  of  the  proceedings  at  Tyre  before  the  open- 
ing of  the  Synod  there  (A.D.  518),  at  which  the  people  had 
most  decidedly  demanded  that  anathema  should  be  pronounced 
on  Severus.7  (g)  In  accordance  with  the  requirement  of 

1  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  1037  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1317. 

2  Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  1041-1049  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  pp.  1322-1327. 

3  Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  1049-1056  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1327  sqq.     Compare  above, 
sec.  233. 

4  Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  1057-1065  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1334  sqq.;  cf.  sec.  233. 
8  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  1065  sqq.;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1342. 

e  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  1068  sqq.;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1342  sqq. 

7  Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  1081-1092  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  pp.  1354-1362. 


John  of  Constantinople  the  bishops  of  Syria  II.  had  also  held 
a  Synod  and  pronounced  anathema  on  Severus.  They 
thought  good  also  to  suspend  the  same  sentence  over  Peter 
of  Apamea,  and  sent  to  John  of  Constantinople  and  his  Synod 
their  own  synodal  letter,  together  with  a  long  appendix 
which  contained  all  the  numerous  complaints,  etc.,  received 
against  Peter  of  Apamea.  These  documents  were  now  also 
read  again,  A.D.  536.1 

Hereupon  Mennas  invited  the  Synod  now  to  give  its 
judgment ;  and  after  this  had  been  done  by  the  Latins  and 
the  other  members  (through  an  interpreter),2  Mennas  an- 
nounced, in  a  longer  address,  the  decision,  that  Severus, 
Peter,  Zoaras,  and  their  adherents,  and  all  who  held  con- 
venticles and  baptized  without  authority,  together  with 
their  writings,  should  be  smitten  with  anathema.  This 
sentence  was  subscribed  by  all,  and  the  Synod  was  then 

Two  months  later,  August  6,  536,  the  Emperor  Justinian 
published  an  edict  directed  against  Anthimus,  Severus,  Peter 
of  Apamea,  and  Zoaras,  in  the  form  of  a  letter  to  the 
Patriarch  Mennas,  in  which  he  confirmed  the  ecclesiastical 
sentences  pronounced  against  them,  and  forbade  them  to 
reside  henceforth  in  Constantinople  and  its  neighbourhood, 
or  in  any  other  large  city,  to  disseminate  their  doctrine,  to 
baptize,  etc.  Of  Severus  it  was  alleged,  in  an  astonishing 
manner,  that  he  sometimes  defended  the  Nestorian  and  some- 
times the  Eutychian  error,  although  they  were  as  far  as 
possible  opposed.  All  the  adherents  of  these  men  were,  like 
them,  exiled,  and  the  books  of  Severus  were  to  be  burnt  by 
everyone  who  possessed  them.  Whoever  should  receive  the 

1  Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  1093-1136  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  pp.  1362-1394. 

2  The  Vote  of  the  Greek  and  Oriental  bishops  bears  the  superscription  : 
Sententia  Epiphanii  patriarchs  et  Synodi,  etc.,  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  1137  ;  Hardouin, 
I.e.  p.  1394.     This  is  evidently  incorrect,  for  the  whole  context  of  this  Sentcntia 
shows  that  it  was  preceded  by  the  reading  of  the  numerous  documents  which 
were  presented  at  the  Synod  of  Constantinople,  so  that  they  could  not  have 
proceeded  from  the  Patriarch  Epiphanius  of  Constantinople  (520-535.)    Per- 
haps, instead  of  Epiphanii,  we  should  read  Hypatii,  who,  in  the  fourth  session, 
spoke  as  the  representative  of  the  Greek  and  Syrian  majority  (Mansi,  I.e.  p.  961, 
and  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1258),  and  in  a  similar  manner  "in  the  name  of  the 
Synod,"  as  is  here  ascribed  to  Epiphanius. 


banished  into  his  house  and  support  them,  his  house  and 
goods  should  be  confiscated  and  made  over  to  the  Church. 
Mennas,  finally,  was  requested  to  transmit  this  edict  to  the 
other  metropolitans.1 

After  Mennas  had  communicated  this  imperial  edict  to 
the  Palestinian  monks  now  returning  to  their  home,  and  had 
added  a  letter  of  his  own  to  the  Patriarch  Peter  of  Jerusalem, 
the  latter  assembled,  September  19,  536,  the  bishops  of  the 
three  provinces  of  Palestine  in  a  Synod  in  the  Secretarium 
of  his  Episcopal  Church.  The  two  letters  above  mentioned, 
and,  besides  these,  also  the  Acts  of  the  five  sessions  of  Con- 
stantinople, which  had  been  communicated  by  Mennas,  were 
read  aloud,  and  then  the  assent  of  the  Synod  to  the  deposi- 
tion of  Anthimus  was  solemnly  declared.  All  present,  forty- 
nine  in  number,  subscribed.2  No  sentence  against  Severus 
of  Antioch  and  Peter  of  Apamea  is  contained  in  the  Acts  of 
Jerusalem.  Walch3  supposes  that  the  silence  on  both  has 
its  foundation  in  this,  that  the  bishops  of  Palestine  had 
already  condemned  both.  This  is  not  so.  Walch  here  con- 
founds the  Palestinian  and  the  Syrian  bishops.  The  former 
had  pronounced  judgment  only  over  Severus,  in  the  year 
518.  Compare  sec.  233. 

SEC.  251.   Third  Synod  at  Orleans,  A.D.  538. 

The  third  Synod  of  Orleans,  like  the  second,  was  not 
merely  a  provincial  Synod,  since  the  bishops  of  several 
ecclesiastical  provinces  took  part  in  it.  The  president  was 
the  Metropolitan  Lupus  of  Lyons,  although  the  city  and 
diocese  of  Orleans  did  not  belong  to  his  province,  but  to  that 
of  Sens.  Besides  him  there  were  present  the  Metropolitans 
Pantagathus  of  Vienne,  Leo  of  Sens,  Arcadius  of  Bourges,  and 
Flavius  of  Rouen.  The  archbishop  of  Tours,  Injuriosus,  was 
represented  by  a  priest.  The  Acts  were  subscribed  by 
nineteen  bishops,  and  seven  priests  as  representatives  of 
absentees.  In  the  subscription  of  Archbishop  Lupus,  the 

1  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  1149  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1406  sqq. 

2  Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  1164-1176  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  pp.  1410-1419. 

3  Ketzerhist.  Thl.  vii.  S.  160,  Anm.  2. 

THIRD  SYNOD  AT  ORLEANS,  A.D.   538.  205 

time  of  the  holding  of  the  Synod  is  given  as  Die  Nonarum 
mensis  tertii,  quarto  post  consulatum  Paulini  junioris  V.  C.  anno 
27  regni  Domini  ChUdeberti  regis.  This  indicates  the  year 
538,  and  probably  the  7th  of  May,  since  in  ancient  times  it 
was  common  to  begin  the  year  with  the  25th  of  March.1 
The  assembled  bishops  declare  their  aim  to  be  the  re-establish- 
ment of  the  old  laws  of  the  Church  and  the  passing  of  new 
ones.  This  they  accomplished  in  thirty-three  canons,  many 
of  which  contain  several  ordinances  : — 

1.  The    metropolitan    must    every  year  summon  a  pro- 
vincial Synod.     If  he  fails  for  two  years,  in  spite  of  being 
requested  by  the  suffragans,  he  must  not  venture  to  say  Mass 
for  a  whole  year. 

2.  No  cleric,  from  a  subdeacon  upwards,  must  have  con- 
nubial intercourse  with  his  wife,  whom  he  formerly  possessed. 
A  bishop  who  allows  it,  is  to  be  suspended  for  three  months. 

3.  Metropolitans,  when  possible,  are  to  be  ordained  by 
other    metropolitans,  but  in  presence   of    the   comprovincial 
bishops.     But  they  are  to  be  chosen,  as  the  decrees  of  the 
apostolic    see    ordain,  by   the    comprovincials,  in    agreement 
(cum  consensu)  with  the  clergy  and  the  citizens.     The  ordinary 
bishop  is  to  be  chosen  by  the  clergy  and  the  citizens,  with 
consent  of  the  metropolitan. 

4.  Intercourse  with  strange  women  forbidden. 

5.  Whatever  is  left  to  the  Churches  in  cities  shall  be  in 
the    power    of    the  bishop,  who  can  expend    it    for   church 
repairs,  or  for  the  sustentation  of  the  clergy  ministering  in 
the  churches  receiving   the  legacy.     In  regard  to  the  pro- 
perty of  village  churches,  the  custom  of  each  locality  shall 
be   observed.     Cf.   the   canon   of   the   Synod  of   Carpentras, 
sec.  239. 

6.  A  layman  may  not  be  ordained  until  a  year  after  his 
conversion    (see    sec.   222),  nor  until    he    has    reached    the 
proper  age,  twenty-five  years  for  a  deacon,  and  thirty  for  a 
priest.     No  one  may  become  a  cleric  who  has  been  married 

1  The  7th  of  May  as  the  date  of  our  Synod  is  adopted  by  Sirmond,  Cmicttia 
Qallix,  t.  i.  p.  247  ;  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  19  ;  Remi  Ceillier,  Hist,  des  auteurs  sacrts,  t. 
xvi.  p.  725.  On  the  other  hand,  the  authors  of  the  Hist.  litUraire  de  la  France  (t. 
iii.  p.  178)  decide  for  the  7th  of  March,  but  have  incorrectly  printed  558  for  538. 


twice,  or  to  a  widow,  or  who  has  undergone  ecclesiastical 
penance,  or  is  semus  corpore  (i.e.  imperfectus  or  mutilatus),  or 
tormented  (arreptus) l  by  a  demon.  If,  however,  such  an  one 
should  be  ordained,  he  is  to  be  deposed,  and  the  bishop  who 
ordained  him  suspended  from  clerical  functions.  If  he  still 
says  Mass,  he  is  to  be  excluded  for  a  whole  year  ab  omnium 
fratrum  caritate  (cf.  canon  20  of  the  Synod  of  Chalcedon  in 
vol.  iii.).  If  anyone  gives  false  witness  at  an  ordination,  so 
that  an  unworthy  person  is  ordained,  he  is  to  be  deprived  of 
communion  for  a  year. 

7.  If  a  cleric  who  has  been  willingly  ordained  marries 
after  his  ordination,  he  and  his  wife  must  be  excommunicated. 
If  he  has  been  ordained  against  his  will  and  under  protest  (if 
he  marries),  he  loses  his  office,  but  he  is  not  to  be  excommuni- 
cated.    The  bishop  who  consecrates  anyone  against  his  will, 
and  in  spite  of  his  refusal,  is  to  be  suspended  for  a  year  from 
celebrating  Mass.     If  a  higher  (honoratior)  cleric  confesses  or 
is  proved  to  have  committed  adultery,  he  is  to  be  deposed, 
and  for  the  rest  of  his  life  shut  up  in  a  monastery,  but  not 
deprived  of  the  communion. — Partly  received  into  the  Corp. 
jur.  can.  as  c.  1,  Dist.  Ixxiv.,  and  c.  10,  Dist.  Ixxxi. 

8.  The  cleric  who  has  been  guilty  of    a  theft  or  of   a 
falsehood,  is  to  be  degraded  from  the  Ordo,  but  not  excom- 
municated.    A  perjurer  is   to   be  excommunicated   for    two 

9.  Whoever,  during  his  wife's  life,  or  after  her  death,  has 
had  intercourse  with  a  concubine,  must  not  be  ordained.     If, 
through  ignorance  of  this  prohibition,  he  is  already  ordained, 
he  may  remain  among  the  clergy. 

10.  Incestuous  marriages  are   forbidden.     If  neophytes, 
immediately  after  their  baptism,  and  in  ignorance  of  this  pro- 
hibition, contracted  such  a  marriage,  it  shall  not  be  dissolved. 

1 1.  Clerics  who  will  not  fulfil  the  duties  of  their  office, 
nor    obey    the    bishop,    shall    not    be    reckoned    among    the 
canonicis  clericis  (that  is,  the  clergy  inscribed  in  the  Church 
register),  nor  like   these   receive  support  from  Church  pro- 

1 2.  Church  property  must  not  be  alienated,  nor  burdened 

1  Cf.  Du  Cange,  Glossar.  s.vv.  semus  and  arreptus. 

THIRD    SYNOD  AT  ORLEANS,  A.D.   538.  207 

without  necessity.     If  any   has   been    alienated,   it  may   be 
recovered  for  thirty  years  after. 

13.  If  Christians  are  slaves  to  Jews,  and  shall  do  any- 
thing contrary  to  the  Christian  religion,  or  if  their  masters 
venture  to  attempt  to  strike  them  on  account  of    any  act 
allowed    by  the    Church,  and    they    flee    repeatedly   to    the 
church,  the  bishop  is  not  to  give  them  up  unless  the  value  of 
the  slave  in  question  is  paid  down  (as  a  pledge  that  no  harm 
shall  be  done  him).     Christians  must  not  marry  with  Jews, 
nor  even  eat  with  them. 

14.  At  the  principal  festivals,  at  least,  Mass  is  to  begin 
at  the  third  hour  (9  A.M.),  so  that  the  priests,  if  the  office  is 
discharged  at  the  proper  hours,  may  be  able  to  come  together 
at  vespers,  for  on  such  days  the  sacerdos  must  be  present  at 

15.  No  bishop  must  ordain  clerics  or  consecrate  altars  in 
strange  dioceses.     If  he  does  so,  those  who  are  ordained  by 
him  are  to  be  removed  (remotis) ;  but  the  consecration  of  the 
altars  holds,  and  he  (the  bishop),  must  refrain  from  saying 
Mass  for  a  year.     No  cleric  must  be  appointed  to  office  in  a 
strange  diocese  without  the  consent  of  his  bishop.     No  priest, 
deacon,  or  subdeacon,  who  travels  without  a  letter  from  his 
bishop,  may  be  received  to  communion. 

16.  If  anyone  carries  off  a  virgin  dedicated  to  God,  or 
one  who  is  vowed  (has  vowed  the  ascetic  life),  and  does  her 
violence,  he  shall  be  shut  out  from  communion  to  the  end  of  his 
life.     If  the  woman  carried  off  consents  to  intercourse  with 
the    ravisher,   she    must   share   the   same    excommunication. 
The  same  applies  to  penitents  and  widows  who  have  taken  a 
vow  (see  sec.  237). 

17.  If    a    cleric    has    received    anything    through     the 
favour  of  a  previous  bishop,  he  must  not  be  deprived  of  it 
by  the  succeeding  bishop,  but  an  exchange  may  be  made  so 
long  as  he  is  not  injured.     On  the  other  hand,  a  bishop  may 
deprive  a  cleric  of  what  he  has  himself  given,  in  case  he  is 
disobedient,  etc. 

18.  If    the    administration    of    a    monastery,    a    diocese 
(parochial  church),1  or  basilica  is  committed  to  a  clergyman 

1  Cf.  Du  Cange,  s.v.  Dioecesis,  n.  2. 


in  an  episcopal  church,  it  rests  with  the  bishop  to  decide 
whether  he  will  allow  him  anything  (of  the  income)  of  his 
previous  office. 

19.  If  any  through  pride  neglects  his  office,  he  must  be 
deposed  (ab  ordine  depositus)  to  lay  communion  until  he  does 
penance  (i.e.  so  long  he  shall  be  suspended) ;  yet  the  bishop 
shall  treat  him  with  kindness  and  allow  him  his  income. 

20.  If  a  cleric  believes  that  he  is  wronged  by  the  bishop, 
he  may  appeal  to  the  Synod. 

21.  Clerics  who  have  entered  into  a  conspiracy,  must  be 
punished  by  the  Synod. — Received  into  the  Corp.  jur.  can.  as 
c.  25,  C.  xi.  q.  1. 

22.  Whoever  takes  any  of  the  property  of  a  Church  or  a 
bishop,  must  be  excommunicated  until  he  makes  restitution. 
So  also  with  anyone  who  prevents  the  legacies  of  departed 
persons    from    descending  to  the  Church,  or  wants  to  take 
back  what  he  has  himself  previously  given  to  the  Church. 

23.  No    abbot,    priest,    etc.,  may    alienate    anything    of 
Church  property  without  the  bishop's  permission  and  signa- 
ture.— This  is  c.  41,  C.  xii.  q.  2. 

24.  The  benedictio  pcenitentice  (see  above,  sees.   222  and 
231)  must  not  be  given  to  young  people,  particularly  not  to 
married    people    unless     they    are    already     advanced     in 
years,    and    both     sides    are    agreeable.       Cf.     Frank,     On 
the    Penitential    Discipline    of   the    Church,   Mainz    1867,  p. 

25.  If  anyone  after  reception  of  the  benedictio  pcenitentice 
returns  to  a  secular  life  or  to  the  militia?-  he  may  receive 
communion  only  on  his  deathbed. 

26.  No    slave    or    farmer    (colonus)    must    be    ordained. 
The  bishop  who  knowingly  ordains  one  who  is  not  free,  must 
refrain  from  saying  Mass  for  a  year. 

27.  No  cleric,  from  a  deacon  upwards,  must  lend  money 
on    interest,   toil    from    sordid    covetousness,   carry    on    any 
forbidden  business,  etc. 

28.  It  is  a  Jewish  superstition  that  it  is  unlawful  to  ride 
or  drive  on  Sunday,  or  do  anything  for  the  decoration  of  house  or 

1  The  militia  togata=Givil  State  service  ;  the  militia  paliidata=mi\ii&vy 
service.     Cf.  Frank,  I.e.  S.  688. 


person.  But  field  labours  are  forbidden,  so  that  people  may 
be  able  to  come  to  church  and  worship.  If  anyone  acts 
otherwise,  he  is  to  be  punished,  not  by  the  laity,  but  by  the 

29.  No  layman  must  depart  from  Mass  before  the  Lord's 
Prayer.  If  the  bishop  is  there  he  must  await  his  blessing. 
No  one  must  appear  armed  at  Mass  or  vespers. 

38.  From  Maundy  Thursday  for  four  days  onwards,  Jews 
must  not  appear  among  Christians. 

31.  The  judge  who  does  not  punish  a  rebaptizer  is  to  be 
excommunicated  for  a  year. 

32.  No    cleric    may    bring    a    layman   before  a   secular 
tribunal  without  permission  of  the  bishop  ;  nor  any  layman  a 
cleric  without  the  same  permission. 

33.  No  bishop  may  transgress  these  canons.1 

SEC.  252.  Synods  at  Barcelona  and  in  the  Province  of  Byzacene. 

About  the  year  540,  Archbishop  Sergius  of  Tarragona 
with  his  suffragans  celebrated  a  provincial  Synod  at  Barce- 
lona, which  gave  ten  quite  short,  but  not  easily  intelligible, 
canons : — 

1.  Before  the   Canticum,  Ps.  1.  [li.]   {Miserere)  is   to  be 

2.  The  blessing  is  to  be  given  at  matins  as  well  as  at 
vespers. — Of.  c.  30  of  Agde,  sec.  222. 

3.  No  cleric  may  dress  hair  or  shave  the  beard. 

4.  A  deacon  may  not  sit  in  the  presence  of  a  presbyter. 

5.  In  the  presence  of  the  bishop,  priests  shall  say  prayers 
in  proper  order  (orationes  in  ordine  colligant 2). 

6.  Penitents  must  shave  their  heads,  wear  a  monk's  frock, 
and  dedicate  their  lives  to  fasting  and  prayer. 

7.  They  must  not  take  part  in  banquets. 

1  Mansi,  t.  ix.  pp.  10-22  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1422  ;  Sinnond,  Condi.  Gallise, 
t.   i.  p.  247  sqq.     Still  better  in  Bruns,  Biblioth.  Eccl.  t.  i.  pt.  ii.  p.  191  sqq. 
(from  the  incomplete  Benedictine  edition  of  the  Gallican  Synods). 

2  Colleda  is  like  oratio,  because  the  priest  collects  into  one  the  wishes  and 
prayers  of  those  present.     Orationes  colligere=colledas  dicere,  cf.  Du  Cange, 
s.v.  Collecta,  n.  8,  t.  ii.  p.  754.     Remi  Ceillier  (t.  xvi.  p.  731)  and  Richard 
(Analysis  Condi,  t.  i.  p.  351)  read  absentc,  instead  ofprasscnte. 

iv.  14 


8.  If  invalids  request  and  receive  penance,  they    must, 
when  they  are  well  again,  live  on  as  penitents.     The  laying 
on  of  hands,  however  (the  sign  of  Church  penance  proper), 
must  not  be  imparted  to   them.     They  are  to  be  deprived 
of  the  communion   until    the    bishop    has    found   their    life 

9.  The  sick  shall  receive  the  benedictio  viatica  (i.e.  the 
viaticum).     See  sec.  229. 

10.  In  regard  to  monks,  the  ordinances  of  the  Synod  of 
Chalcedon  (in  many  of  its  canons)  are  valid.1 

Through  two  edicts  of  the  Emperor  Justinian  we  obtain 
information  respecting  an  African  Synod  of  the  province  of 
Byzacene,  A.D.  541,  under  the  Primate  (Metropolitan) 
Dacian.  The  minutes  of  the  Synod  are  not  extant.  The 
principal  subject  of  the  transactions,  however,  seems  to  have 
had  reference  to  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  province  of 
Byzacene  and  its  Synod  ;  and  the  assembly  sent  two  deputies 
to  the  Emperor  in  order  to  obtain  his  approbation  of  their 
decrees.  Justinian  gave  this  to  the  effect  that  in  all  ecclesi- 
astical proceedings  in  Africa,  and  also  with  regard  to  Councils, 
and  the  privileges  of  the  metropolitans  of  Carthage  and  the 
primates  of  Numidia  and  Byzacene,  the  older  practice  and  the 
earlier  decisions  should  remain.2 

SEC.  253.  Fourth  Synod  at  Orleans,  A.D.  541. 

The  great  Prankish  National  Synod,  which  was  held  at 
Orleans  under  the  consulate  of  Basil  (i.e.  A.D.  541),  as  the 
subscription  of  its  president  specifies,  was  attended  by  bishops 
from  almost  all  the  provinces  of  Gaul.  Fleury  and,  after 
him,  Kemi  Ceillier  (t.  xvi.  p.  732)  maintain,  that  all  the  three 
kingdoms  into  which  the  great  Frankish  kingdom  was  divided 
were  here  represented,  and  that  only  from  Narbonensis  I.  was 
there  no  bishop  present,  because  this  province  then  belonged  to 

1  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  110  sq.  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ix.  p.  1434  sq.  ;  Gonzalez,  Coleccion 
de  Canones,  Madrid  1849,  t.  ii.  p.  686  sqq. 

2  The  two  imperial  decrees  to  the  Byzacene  Council  and  its  president, 
the  Primate  Dacian,  dated  October  6,  541,  and  October  29,  542,  are  printed  in 
Baronins,  ad  arm.  541,  n.  10-12. 

FOURTH  SYNOD  AT  ORLEANS,  A.D.  541.        211 

the  Spanish  West  Gothic  kingdom.  On  the  other  hand,  Kichard 
(Analysis  Concil.  t.  i.  p.  531  sq.)  showed  that  no  bishop  was 
present  from  the  kingdom  (Soissons)  of  Lothaire  (Chlotar), 
nor  yet  from  the  two  Germanic  and  the  two  Belgian  provinces  ; 
whilst  there  was  one  from  Narbonensis  i.,  namely,  Firminus  of 
Ucetia  (Uzez).  The  president  was  Archbishop  Leontius  of 
Bordeaux.  Besides  him  there  were  many  other  metropolitans 
present,  altogether  thirty-eight  bishops  and  twelve  representa- 
tives of  bishops.  Among  those  present  we  find  also  Bishop 
Grammaticus  of  Vindonissa.1  The  thirty-eight  canons  of  this 
assembly  are  as  follows : — 

1.  The  Easter  festival  must  be  celebrated  by  all  at  the 
same  time,  according  to  the  Table  of  Victorius  (see  vol.  i.  p. 
330).     As  early  as  the  Epiphany  the  bishop  shall  proclaim 
the  day  of  Easter  to  the  people.     If  a  doubt  arises  as  to  the 
festival,  the  metropolitans  shall  apply  to  the  apostolic  see  for  a 

2.  In  all  churches  Lent  (Quadragesima)  shall  be  held  in 
the    same    manner,    and    not  in   some  a  Quinquagesima  or 
Sexagesima.     Everyone  who  is  not  sick  must  fast  also  on  the 
Saturdays  of  Lent ;  only  Sunday  is  excepted. 

3.  It  is  not  permitted  to  distinguished  laymen  to  keep 
the    Easter    festival    outside    the    episcopal    city    (in    their 

4.  At  the  oblation  of  the  holy  chalice,  only  wine  from 
the  grape,  mixed  with  water,  must  be  used. 

5.  A  newly-elected  bishop   must  be  consecrated  in  the 
church  over  which  he  is  to  preside. 

6.  The  parochial  clergy  (parochiani  clerici)  shall  receive 
from  the  bishops  the  canons  which  it  is  necessary  for  them  to 

7.  Strange  clergymen  must  not   be   admitted  into    the 
oratories  on  country  estates  without  permission  of  the  bishop 
in  whose  diocese  the  oratory  lies. 

8.  In  the  case  of  those  who  have  fallen  into  heresy  after 
baptism,  but  do  penance,  the  bishop  shall  decide  when  and 
how  they  shall  be  restored  to  communion. 

1  Cf.  my  treatise  on  the  Introduction  of  CJiristianity  into  S.-W.  Germany, 
p.  176. 


9.  If  a  bishop,  in  opposition  to  the  canons,  has  sold  or 
pledged  any  Church  property,  and  if  he  leaves  none  of  his 
property  to  the  Church,  it  must  be  reclaimed  for  the  Church. 
If  he  has  bestowed  their  liberty  on  any  of  the  slaves  of  the 
Church  (to  a  moderate  number),  these  shall  remain  free. 

10.  If  a   bishop  has  knowingly  ordained  a  bigamist,  or 
the  husband  of  a  widow,  a  Levite,  or  a  priest,  he  must  know 
that  he  is  suspended  for  a  year  from  all  clerical  function ; 
and  the  unlawfully  ordained  shall  be  degraded. 

11.  Anything    presented    to    abbots    or    monasteries    or 
parishes  does  not  belong  to  the  abbots  or  priests  themselves. 
If  it  is  necessary  to  alienate  anything,  this  can  be  done  only 
with  the  signature  of  the  bishop. 

12.  If  a  dispute  arises  between  bishops  about  possessions, 
they  must,  as  soon  as  possible,  come  to  an  understanding,  or 
choose  a  court  of  equity.     The  bishop  who  refuses  this  will 
be  excluded  a  caritate  fratrum  (can.  20  of  Chalcedon). 

13.  A  judge  who  compels  clergymen  to  perform  public 
services,  must  know  that  he  has  not  the  peace  of  the  Church. 
In  particular,  a  bishop,  priest,  or  deacon  must  not  be  burdened 
with  a  guardianship,  from  which  even  heathen  priests  were 

14.  Anything  bequeathed  to  a  church  or  to  a  bishop  by 
a  valid  document  must  not  be  withheld  by  the  heirs. 

15.  Whoever  after  baptism  still  eats  of  idol  sacrifices, 
unless  he  reforms  on  being  exhorted,  must  be  excommunicated. 

16.  If  a  Christian,  in  a  heathenish  manner,  takes  an  oath 
on  the  head  of  an  animal,  unless  he  reforms  on  being  exhorted, 
he  must  be  excommunicated. 

17.  Sacerdotes  (bishops  and    priests)    and  deacons   must 
not  have  the  same   chamber  and  the  same  bed   with  their 
wives,  so  that  they  may  not  be  brought  into   suspicion  of 
carnal  intercourse. 

18.  If  a  cleric  sells   Church  property  which  he  has  in 
usufruct,  this  is  invalid. 

19.  If  anyone  has  demonstrably  presented  anything  to 
the   Church  in  goods   or  vineyards,  even  without  a  written 
document,  neither  he  nor  his  heir  must  reclaim  it  from  the 
Church,  under  pain  of  excommunication. 

FOURTH  SYNOD  AT  ORLEANS,  A.D.  541.        213 

20.  No  layman  may  arrest,  try,  or  punish  a  clergyman 
without    permission    of    the    bishop    or    other    ecclesiastical 
superior.       If    the    cleric    is   required    by    his   ecclesiastical 
superior  to  appear  before  the   secular  judge,  then  he  must 
give  speech  and  answer  there  without  hesitation.     In  a  trial 
between  a  cleric  and  a  layman  the  judge  must  make  no  ex- 
amination except  in  presence  of  the  priest  or  archdeacon  who  is 
the  superior  of  the  cleric.     If  two  contending  parties  (a  cleric 
and  a  layman)  wish  to  carry  their  trial  before  the  secular 
tribunal,  permission  to  this  effect  may  be  given  to  the  cleric. 

21.  The  right  of  asylum  of  churches  is  confirmed  anew. 

22.  No  one  must  marry  a  girl  against  the  will  of  her 
parents  under  pain  of  excommunication. 

23.  The  servants  of  the  Church  and  of  the  bishops  must 
commit  no  acts  of  violence  nor  take  anyone  prisoner. 

24.  If  a  male  or  female  slave  take  refuge  in  a  church,  in 
order  to  get  married  against  the  will  of  their  master,  this  must 
be  invalid,  and  such  a  union  must  not  be  defended  by  the  clergy. 

25.  No   cleric  may  possess  Church  property  under  the 
protection  of  a  man  of  power,  without  the  assent  of  the  bishop. 

26.  If  churches  are  found  in  the  houses  of  great  men, 
the  clergy  who  minister  there,  in  case  of  their  not  fulfilling 
their  duty  to  the   Church,  must  be  punished  by  the  arch- 
deacon.    If  however,  they  are  hindered  by  the  great  man  or 
his  representative  from  doing  their  duty,  he  must  be  deprived 
of  sacred  offices  until  his  amendment. 

27.  Whoever  does   not  observe   the   ordinances   of    the 
previous  Synod   of   Orleans   (c.    10)  in  regard  to  incestuous 
marriages,  must  be  punished  in  accordance  with  the  canons 
of  Epaon  (see  above,  sec.  231). 

28.  If    anyone    has    intentionally  committed   a  murder, 
even  if  he  is  freed  from  punishment  by  the  prince  or  by  the 
parents  (of  the  murdered  man),  must  have  suitable  penance 
imposed  by  the  bishop. 

29.  If  a  woman  has  committed  adultery  with  a  cleric, 
both  must  be  punished  by  the  bishop,  and  the  woman  banished 
from  the  city. 

30.  If  a  Christian,  who  is  the  slave  of  a  Jew,  flees  to  a 
church    or  to    any  Christian  requesting  to  be  bought  from 


the  Jew,  this  shall  be  done,  and  the  loss  to  the  Jew  made 
good  according  to  just  valuation. 

31.  If  a  Jew  makes  a  proselyte  called  Advena1  to  be  a 
Jew,  or  perverts  one  who  has  been  converted  to  Christianity 
to   the  Jewish  superstition,  or  associates    with    his    female 
Christian  slave  (for  carnal  connection),  or  perverts  to  Judaism 
one  born  of  Christian  parents,  under  the  promise  of  freedom, 
he  is  to  be  punished  with  the  loss  of  (all)  his  slaves.     If  one 
born  of  Christian  parents  has  apostatised  to  Judaism,  and 
has  obtained  his  freedom  on  condition  of  remaining  a  Jew, 
this  shall  not  be  valid,  for  he  ought  not  to  remain  free,  who, 
being  born  of  Christian  parents,  wishes  to  adhere  to  Jewish 

32.  If  descendants  of  slaves  (of  the  Church),  after  any 
length  of  time,  are  met  with  again  at  the  place  to  which  their 
ancestors   belonged,   they   must    be  demanded   back   by  the 
bishop,  and  remain  in  those  relations  which  are  indicated  by 
the  departed  (forefathers).     If  a  layman,  from  covetousness, 
opposes  this  (retains  descendants  of  Church  slaves  for  himself), 
he  must  be  excommunicated.     This  canon  is  differently  and, 
as  I  think,  incorrectly  interpreted  by  Canon  Mohler  in  his 
treatise  on  slavery  in  the  Tubingen  Quartalschrift,  1834,  p. 
597,  and  in  his  collected  writings,  vol.  ii.  p.  128.     Different 
again  is  the  translation  of  Eemi  Ceillier  (t.   xvi.  p.  736): 
"  Les  descendans  des  Esclaves  seront  obliges  au  service  et  aux 
charges,  sous  lesquels  ceux  dont  Us  descendent  ont  obtenu  leur 
liberte  (there  is  nothing  in  the  text  of  their  having  obtained 
their  liberty),  quoiqu'  il  yait  longtemps." 

33.  If  anyone  wishes  to  have  a  diocese  (parish)  in  his 
domain,  before  all  he  must  provide  it  sufficiently  with  landed 
property  and  clergy. 

34.  If  anyone  has  received  from  the  bishop  the  usufruct 
of  landed  property  for  his  lifetime,  he  must  not  alienate  from 
the  Church  that  which  he  has  saved  out  of  it,  and  his  relations 
must  appropriate  no  part  of  it. 

35.  It  belongs  to  the  successor  to  a  bishopric  to  decide 
whether  the  last  will  of  his  predecessor,  in  consequence  of 

1  Proselytus  nude  pro  advena,  hospcs.     Of.  Du  Gauge,  Olossar.  s.v.  t.  v.  p. 

SYNODS  AT  ANTIOCII   AND  GAZA,  A.D.   542.  215 

which  a  cleric,  during  the  vacancy  of  the  see,  has  settled  in 
the  enjoyment  of  Church  property,  shall  be  held  valid  or  not. 
The  ordinary  term  of  prescription  has  no  application  here. 

36.  If  a  bishop  has  let  out  ecclesiastical  property  to  a 
strange  cleric,  it  falls  back  after  the  death  of  this  cleric  to 
the  Church  again. 

37.  The   metropolitans  are  annually  to  hold    provincial 
Synods,  that  discipline  and  love  may  be  maintained. 

38.  All  bishops  are  required  to  obey  these  canons.1 

SEC.  254.  Synods  at  Antioch  and  Gaza,  A.D.  542. 

We  met  with  the  last  controversy  about  Origen  before 
this  time,  at  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century,  in  the  history 
of  S.  Chrysostom,  and  in  the  account  of  the  Synods  held  on 
his  account  (see  vol.  iii.  sec.  1 1 5).  From  this  time  onwards, 
for  nearly  a  century  and  a  half,  this  controversy  rested ;  but 
there  was  growing  up  an  ever  stronger  conviction  of  the 
heretical  character  of  many  of  the  doctrines  of  the  great 
Alexandrian.  Thus,  for  example,  Pope  Leo  the  Great  assumed 
(Ep.  35,  t.  i.  p.  881,  ed.  Ballerini)  that  Origen  had  been 
justly  anathematised  on  account  of  his  doctrine  of  the  pre- 
existence  of  souls,  and  the  Eoman  Synod  of  A.D.  496  blamed 
Eusebius  because  with  Pamphilus  he  had  written  a  defence  of 
Origen  (see  above,  sec.  217).  Yet,  it  adds,  "many  of  his 
books  are  to  be  read." 

About  the  year  520,  however,  a  new  controversy  broke 
out  about  Origen,  in  Palestine.  Four  monks  of  the  new 
Laura,  Nonnus  at  their  head,  were  zealous  Origenists,  and 
were  therefore  expelled  by  their  Abbot  Agapetus.  His 
successor  Mennas  restored  them.  On  the  other  hand,  S. 
Sabas,  the  superior  of  the  monks  of  Palestine,  personally 
made  a  journey  (A.D.  530)  to  Constantinople,  and  demanded 
of  the  Emperor  Justinian  the  expulsion  of  the  Origenists. 
Before,  however,  the  Emperor  took  any  steps,  Sabas  died  in 
531,  and  Origenism  extended  still  more  widely  among  the 
monks  of  Palestine,  particularly  through  two  learned  monks, 

1  Mansi,   t.  ix.   p.  Ill  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.   p.   1435  sqq.;   Sirmond,   Coiicti. 
Gallix,  t.  i.  p.  260  sqq. ;  Bruns,  I.e.  p.  201  sqq. 


Domitian  and  Theodore  Ascidas.  Both  immediately  gained 
the  favour  of  the  Emperor  to  such  an  extent,  that  he  advanced 
them  to  episcopal  chairs  about  the  year  537.  Domitian  be- 
came bishop  of  Ancyra  in  Galatia,  and  Theodore  Ascidas, 
archbishop  of  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia  (as  successor  of  the 
well-known  Sotericus) ;  and  both  of  them  stayed  a  good  deal 
at  the  imperial  court.1 

Supported  by  these  two  men,  the  Origenists  obtained  the 
upper  hand  in  the  Lauras,  and  drove  out  their  opponents,  the 
so-called  Sabaites.  Six  of  these,  particularly  Stephen  and 
Timothy,  appealed  to  the  Patriarch  Ephraim  of  Antioch,  and 
he  summoned,  about  the  year  542,2  a  Synod  to  deal  with  this 
question  at  Antioch,  as  is  shown  by  the  principal  authority 
for  the  history  of  the  new  Origenistic  controversy,  the  priest 
Cyril  of  Scythopolis,  in  the  biography  of  his  teacher  S. 
Sabas,  in  the  words  :  "  Ephraim  promulgated  a  synodal  decree 
in  which  he  anathematised  the  doctrinal  propositions  of 
Origen.3  The  Libellus  Synodicus  also  refers  to  the  same 
Antiochene  Synod  with  the  brief  remark,  that  Ephraim  of 
Antioch,  the  archbishop  of  Syria,  had,  at  a  holy  Synod, 
anathematised  4  the  defenders  of  Origenist  doctrines  who  had 
lately  arisen  in  Palestine.  All  further  particulars  respecting 
the  Synod  are  unknown,  as  its  Acts  are  lost,  and  we  only  know 
through  Cyril  that  the  Origenists  in  Palestine,  in  order  to 
take  revenge  on  Ephraim,  compelled  the  Patriarch  Peter  of 
Jerusalem  to  strike  the  name  of  his  colleague  of  Antioch  from 
the  diptychs. 

About  the  same  time  the  Synod  at  Gaza  in  Palestine  took 
place  (541  or  542),5  occasioned  by  a  matter  quite  different 
and  unconnected  with  Origenism.  The  Patriarch  Paul  of 
Alexandria  had  fallen  under  suspicion,  as  though,  at  his 
request,  the  imperial  commander  at  Alexandria,  Augustalis 
Rhodo,  had  privately  murdered  Psoius  the  deacon  and  steward 

1  Cf.  on  these  men,  Walch,  Ketzerhist.  Bd.  vii.  S.  651  sq. 

2  Cf.  the  dissertation  of  Mansi,  De  Synodis  in  Origenistas,  in  t.  ix.  p.  707  of 
his  Collect.  Condi. 

3  Cyrilli  Vita  S.  Sabss  gnece  et  lat.  c.  85,  in  Coteler,  Monim.  eccl.  grseciv,  t. 
iii.  p.  365.     Extracted  by  Walch,  Ketzerhist.  Bd.  vii.  S.  626. 

4  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  23  ;  Hardouin,  t.  v.  p.  1534. 

5  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  706. 


of  the  Alexandrian  Church.  On  receiving  intelligence  of  this 
the  Emperor  Justinian  sent  Liberius  as  his  representative  to 
Egypt,  to  examine  the  matter ;  and  Rhodo  declared  at  the 
examination  that  the  Emperor  had  ordered  him  to  do  every- 
thing that  the  bishop  required,  and  that  he  had  murdered 
that  deacon  at  the  command  of  the  bishop.  Bishop  Paul 
denied  that  he  had  given  such  a  command  to  Rhodo,  and  it 
was  proved  that  it  was  not  the  bishop,  but  a  certain  Arsenius, 
a  distinguished  resident  of  Alexandria,  who,  in  connection 
with  Rhodo,  had  brought  about  that  murder.  Arsenius  was 
therefore  immediately  executed,  but  Rhodo  was  sent  to  the 
Emperor  with  the  documents  of  the  examination,  and  was  by 
him  condemned  to  death.  As,  however,  Bishop  Paul  of 
Alexandria  did  not  seem  entirely  without  blame,  the  Emperor 
Justinian  sent  the  Roman  deacon  Pelagius,  who  still  remained 
at  Constantinople  as  legate  (Nuntius),  to  Antioch,  in  order 
that,  in  communion  with  Ephraim,  the  patriarch  of  that  place, 
and  other  bishops  of  distinction,  they  might  complete  the 
deposition  of  the  Alexandrian.  Pelagius,  Ephraim,  Peter, 
patriarch  of  Jerusalem,  Hypatius  of  Ephesus,  and  a  good 
many  other  bishops  assembled,  as  Liberatus  relates  (Breviar. 
c.  23,  in  Galland.  t.  xii.  p.  158),  at  Gaza,  deprived  Paul  of  the 
pallium,  deposed  him,  and  ordained  Zoilus  in  his  stead. 

SEC.  255.   The  Edict  of  Justinian  against  Origen. 

On  the  return  from  Gaza  and  Constantinople  the  Roman 
representative  Pelagius  fell  in  with  monks  from  Jerusalem 
who  had  with  them  extracts  from  the  writings  of  Origen,  and 
wanted  to  obtain  from  the  Emperor  a  sentence  of  condemna- 
tion against  him.1  Pelagius  and  the  Patriarch  Mennas  of 

1  So  it  is  related  by  Liberatus  in  his  Breviar.  c.  23.  As,  however,  Cyril  of 
Scythopolis  (I.e.  c.  85)  relates  that  the  Patriarch  Peter  of  Jerusalem  had  sent,  by 
two  monks,  Sophronius  and  Gelasius,  an  accusation  against  Origen,  and  had 
transmitted  the  same  to  the  Emperor,  so  we  may  rightly  assume  that  Liberatus 
and  Cyril  here  relate  the  same  fact.  Only  Walch  (Ketzerhist.  Bd.  vii.  S.  668  sq. 
Anm.  2)  doubts  it.  This  accusation  against  Origen,  drawn  up  by  Sophronius 
and  Gelasius,  must  not  be  confounded  with  one,  almost  a  decade  later,  which  pro- 
ceeded also  from  Palestinian  monks,  Conon,  Eulogius,  etc.  (cf.  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p. 
707).  Evagrius  in  his  Church  History,  iv.  38,  has  occasioned  great  confusion  by 
confounding  these  two. 


Constantinople  upheld  them  in  this  matter,  and  Justinian 
promulgated  the  edict  against  Origen,  which  afterwards  became 
so  famous.1  This  copious  theological  document  was  first 
published  by  Baronius  in  Latin  (ad  ann.  538,  n.  34  sqq.). 
Later  on  Lupus  made  the  Greek  text  known,  and  it  was 
embodied  in  the  Acts  of  the  fifth  (Ecumenical  Synod.2  That 
copy  of  the  edict  which  has  come  to  us  was  addressed  to  the 
Patriarch  Mennas  of  Constantinople,  and  the  Emperor  declares 
in  it,  at  the  very  beginning,  that  it  was  his  highest  care  to 
preserve  the  faith  pure  and  the  Church  in  peace.  But,  alas ! 
he  had  been  forced  to  learn  that  some  ventured  to  defend  the 
errors  of  Origen,  which  were  similar  to  the  heathen,  Arian,  and 
Manichsean  doctrines.  One  who  followed  such  a  man  as 
Origen  could  scarcely  be  still  called  a  Christian,  for  he, 
blaspheming  the  Holy  Trinity,  had  maintained  that  "  the 
Father  is  greater  than  the  Son,  and  the  Son  greater  than  the 
Holy  Ghost :  That  the  Son  could  not  behold  the  Father,  nor 
the  Spirit  the  Son :  That  the  Son  and  the  Spirit  are  creatures, 
and  that  the  Son  is  related  to  the  Father  as  we  to  the  Son." 

The  Emperor  further  adduces  the  other  leading  errors  of 
Origen  (pre-existence,  apokatastasis,  plurality  of  worlds,  etc.), 
and  opposes  to  them  a  very  thorough  refutation  with  the 
insertion  of  many  patristic  passages  from  Gregory  of 
Nazianzus,  and  of  Nyssa,  Chrysostom,  Peter  of  Alexandria, 
Athanasius,  Basil,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  etc.,  who  had  all 
spoken  decidedly  in  the  rejection  of  Origen's  teaching.  As, 
the  Emperor  proceeded,  he  was  now  desirous  of  removing  all 
offence  from  the  Church,  he,  following  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
and  the  Fathers  who  had  repudiated  Origen,  had  addressed 
this  letter  to  His  Holiness  (Mennas),  advising  him  to  hold  a 
Synod  of  the  bishops  present  in  Constantinople  and  the 
presidents  of  convents  (o-ui>o8o?  eVS^/iouo-a),  and  procure  in 
writing  an  anathema  on  Origen  and  his  errors,  and 
particularly  on  those  propositions  of  his  appended  to  the 
imperial  decree. 

Mennas  was  requested  straightway  to  send  copies  of  the 
Acts  of  this  Synod  to  all  other  bishops  and  heads  of 

1  Liberat.  Brcviar.  c.  23,  I.e. 

•  Mansi,  t.  ix.  pp.  487-534  :  Hardouin,  t.  Hi.  pp.  243-282. 


monasteries,  so  that  they  too  might  subscribe  the  anathema 
on  Origen  and  his  errors.  In  the  future,  too,  no  one  was  to 
be  ordained  bishop  or  head  of  a  monastery  unless  to  the 
customary  anathema  on  the  heretics  Sabellius,  Arius,  Apol- 
linaris,  Nestorius,  Eutyches,  Dioscurus,  Timothy  vElurus,  Peter 
Mongus,  Anthimus  of  Trapezont  (also  of  Constantinople),  Theo- 
dosius  of  Alexandria,  Peter  of  Antioch,  Peter  of  Apamea,  and 
Severus  of  Antioch,  he  should  add  also  an  anathema  on  Origen. 
The  Emperor  stated  that  he  had  written  the  same  to  the 
Patriarch  Vigilius,  the  Pope  of  Old  Eome,  as  well  as  to  the 
other  holy  patriarchs — namely,  of  Alexandria,  Theophilus  (of 
Antioch),  and  of  Jerusalem,  that  they  might  also  take  pre- 
cautions in  this  matter.  So  that  at  last  all  might  see  that 
the  writings  of  Origen  were  heretical,  he  had  appended  only  a 
few  of  his  blasphemies  in  the  appendix.  These  are  twenty- 
four  propositions  from  his  book  Trepl  ap^atv,  particularly  from 
the  first  and  fourth.  This  being  so,  the  Emperor  concludes, 
it  was  reasonable  that  Origen  should  be  anathematised,  and 
in  the  following  ten  propositions:1 — 

1.  Whoever  says  or  thinks  that  human  souls  pre-existed,  i.e. 
that  they  had  previously  been  spirits  and  holy  powers,  but  that, 
satiated  with  the  vision  of  God,  they  had  turned  to  evil,  and  in 
this  way  the  divine  love  in  them  had  grown  cold  (aTrotyityeia-as), 
and  they  had  therefore  become  souls  (^i^a?),  and  had  been 
condemned  to  punishment  in  bodies,  shall  be  anathema. 

2.  If  anyone  says  or  thinks   that   the  soul  of  the  Lord 
pre-existed  and  was  united  with  God  the  Word  before  the 
Incarnation  and  Conception  of  the  Virgin,  let  him  be  anathema. 

3.  If  anyone  says  or  thinks  that  the  body  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  was  first  formed  in  the  womb  of  the  holy  Virgin, 
and  that  afterwards  there  was  united  with  it  God  the  Word 
and  the  pre-existing  soul,  let  him  be  anathema. 

4.  If  anyone    says    or    thinks  that  the    Word  of    God 
became  like  to  all  heavenly  orders,  so  that  for  the  cherubim 
He  was  a  cherub,  for  the  seraphim  a  seraph ;  in  short,  like 
all  superior  powers,  let  him  be  anathema. 

1  Nicephorus  Callisti  (Hist.  EccL  xvii.  27)  explains  these  erroneously  as 
canons  of  the  fifth  (Ecumenical  Synod,  so  that  several  have  supposed  that  the 
fifth  (Ecumenical  Synod  repeated  these  auathcmatisms  of  Justinian. 


5.  If   anyone  says  or  thinks  that,  at    the   resurrection, 
human    bodies    will   rise  in  spherical  form  and   unlike   our 
present  form,  let  him  be  anathema. 

6.  If    anyone    says    that    the    heaven,    the    sun,    the 
moon,    the    stars,    and    the    waters    that    are    above    the 
heavens,  have  souls,  and  are  reasonable  beings,1  let  him  be 

7.  If  anyone  says  or  thinks  that  Christ  the  Lord  in  a 
future  time  will  be  crucified  for  demons  as  He  was  for  men, 
let  him  be  anathema. 

8.  If  anyone  says  or  thinks  that  the  power  of  God  is 
limited,  and  that  HE  created  as  much  as  HE  was  able  to 
compass,  let  him  be  anathema. 

9.  If    anyone    says   or  thinks    that   the   punishment  of 
demons  and  of  impious  men  is  only  temporary,  and  will  one 
day  have  an  end,  and  that  a  restoration  (ciTro/cao-Tao-t?)  will 
take  place,  let  him  be  anathema. 

10.  Anathema  to  Origen  and  to  everyone  who  teaches 
and  maintains  the  like  doctrine. 

Whether  the  Emperor  Justinian  himself  drew  up  this 
edict,  or  the  papal  legate  Pelagius  and  the  Patriarch  Mennas 
were  the  real  authors,  as  Baronius  (ad  ann.  538,  n.  32) 
supposed,  may  reasonably  remain  undecided.  The  question 
of  ecclesiastical  authority,  as  to  whether  the  Emperor  was 
entitled  or  not  to  issue  an  edict  of  this  kind,  belongs  to 
another  department.  It  seems  to  me  that  we  have  here  before 
us  one  of  those  many  and  great,  even  if  well-meant,  Byzan- 
tine encroachments,  which  does  not  disappear  even  when  we 
assume  that  the  Emperor  acted  in  agreement  with  Mennas 
and  Pelagius.  The  promulgation  of  this  decree  falls  after  the 
Synod  of  Gaza,  probably  in  the  year  543,  as  the  Ballerini,  in 
their  appendices  to  the  Works  of  Cardinal  Noris,  made 
probable ; 2  whilst  Baronius  thought  we  should  decide  for  the 
year  538,  Gamier  for  539  or  540. 

1  Paganiuus    Gaudentius,    as   Hardouin,    Maiisi,   and  others  have  already 
remarked,  has  x»y<*aj  instead  of  £AI*«J  1vva,p.ii{.     Cf.  below,  sec.  257,  the 
third  anathematism  on  Origen. 

2  Defensio  dissertationis  Norisianse  de  Synodo  V.  adversus  dissertationetu 
Palris  Garncrii,  in  Noris,  Opp.  ed.  lialler.  t.  iv.  p.  990. 


SEC.  256.  Synod  at  Constantinople  on  account  of  Origen, 
A.D.   543. 

Undoubtedly  the  Patriarch  Mennas  did  not  fail  to  hold 
without  delay  the  vvvo&os  ev&rjfjiovo-a  which  the  Emperor  had 
desired,  probably  in  the  same  year,  543,  and  Justinian 
probably  addressed  to  this  assembly  that  letter,  still  extant, 
in  which  he  derives  the  errors  of  the  Palestinian  monks  from 
Pythagoras,  Plato,  and  Origen,  and  briefly  sums  them  up. 
On  account  of  these  dangerous  errors  and  follies,  the 
assembled  Fathers  were  requested,  after  careful  weighing  of 
the  appended  exposition  (probably  identical  with  the  imperial 
letter  to  Mennas),  to  anathematise  all  those  propositions,  and 
also  Origen  and  all  who  agreed  with  him.1 

SEC.   257.   The  Fifteen  Anathematisms  on  Origen. 

To  this  Constantinopolitan  Synod  of  the  year  543,  with- 
out doubt,  belong  also  the  fifteen  celebrated  anathematisms  on 
the  same  number  of  propositions  of  Origen,  discovered, 
towards  the  end  of  the  seventeenth  century,  by  the  cele- 
brated librarian  of  Vienna,  Peter  Lambeck,  among  the 
ancient  manuscripts  of  the  library,  and  which  had  become 
incorporated  in  all  the  collections  of  Councils.2 

To  these  fifteen  anathematisms  in  the  Vienna  Codex  these 
words  were  prefixed:  T&v  ayt&v  p%e  (=  165)  Trarepcov  T?;? 
ev  K.cov<TTavTivov7rai\€i  aylas  Tre/iTTTT;?  avvoSov  Kavovef.  In 
consequence,  at  first  there  was  no  hesitation  in  assigning  them 
to  the  fifth  (Ecumenical  Synod,  especially  as  several  of  the 
ancients  declared  that  the  latter  did  actually  anathematise 
Origen.  Basing  upon  this,  even  in  later  times,  the  brothers 
Ballerini,  in  particular,  have  ascribed  the  fifteen  anathema- 
tisms to  the  fifth  (Ecumenical  Council,  whilst  Cave  (Historia 
Litteraria,  ad  ann.  541,  p.  363,  ed.  Genev.  1705),  Dupin 

i  Mansi,  t.  ix.  pp.  534-538 ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  282  sq.  The  Ballerini  and 
others  thought  that  the  Emperor  had  addressed  this  letter  first  to  the  fifth 
(Ecumenical  Synod.  They  would  not  allow  the  name  of  a  Synod  to  the 
assembly  under  Mennas.  Norisii  Opp.  ed.  Bailer,  t.  iv.  p.  994. 

3  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  283  sqq.  ;  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  395  sqq. 


(Nouvelk  BMiotheque,  t.  v.  p.  204,  ed.  Mons,  1G91), 
Walch  (Ketzerhist.  Bd.  vii.  S.  661  ff.,  Bd.  viii.  S.  281  ff.), 
Dollinger  (Lehrbuch  der  Kirchengesch.  L  156,  158)  assign 
them  to  the  earlier  Constantinopolitan  Synod  under  Mennas 
(A.D.  543).  Full  certainty  in  this  matter  can  no  longer  be 
attained  ;  but  we  believe  that  we  come  near  the  truth  in  the 
following  remarks : — 

(a)  It  is  true  that  a  series  of  ancient  writers  suppose  that 
the  fifth  (Ecumenical  Council  also  anathematised  Origen ; 
but,  as  we  shall  see  later  on,  in  the  history  of  that  Council, 
there  is  only  this  much  credible  in  the  statement,  that,  in 
their  eleventh  anathematism,  they  repudiated  Origen  among 
others ;  but  that  they  dealt  in  any  detailed  manner  with 
Origen,  and  drew  up  (fifteen)  special  propositions  against  him, 
is  most  probably  incorrect. 

(&)  Whoever  wishes  to  maintain  this,  can  appeal  only  to 
the  superscription  of  the  codex  at  Vienna  and  to  Evagrius 
(Hist.  Ecd.  iv.  38).  That  this  superscription  is  of  much 
value  no  one  will  maintain ;  but  Evagrius  also  in  this  case  is 
a  witness  of  no  importance.  He  interchanges  the  earlier 
accusations  against  Origen,  drawn  up  by  Sophronius  and 
Gelasius,  with  the  later,  presented  by  Eulogius,  Conon,  etc. 
(cf.  above,  sec.  255,  note  1);  and  is  therefore  constrained  to 
remove  the  Synod  which  was  occasioned  by  the  earlier 
accusation  to  a  later  period  (the  (rwoSos  evSvjpovffa  of 
A.D.  543).  He  therefore  identified  it  with  the  fifth 
CEcumenical  Council.  Of  the  latter  he  then  says :  "  They 
appended  to  their  letter  to  the  Emperor  articles  containing 
the  heresies  of  the  Origenists."  He  then  gives  one  of  these 
articles,  the  fifth,  verbally,  as  follows :  "  Theodore  Ascidas  of 
Cappadocia  maintained  that,  as  the  apostles  and  martyrs 
already  do  such  miracles,  and  enjoy  such  honour,  what  could 
they  desire  for  an  apocatastasis,  but  to  be  like  Christ  Himself 
at  the  apocatastasis  ? " 

This  proposition  we  shall  seek  in  vain  among  the  fifteen 
in  question.  Indeed  there  is  not  one  like  it  among  them, 
and  it  is  therefore  clear  that  the  passage  in  Evagrius  contains 
no  proof  for  our  fifteen  propositions,  particularly  as  no 
mention  there  is  made  of  fifteen.  How  it  is,  in  other  respects, 


important  for  us,  we  shall  see  further  on.  Evagrius  further 
tells  us  of  the  condemnation  of  Origen,  and  of  his  propositions 
in  connection  with  the  letter  of  the  Emperor  Justinian  to 
Mennas,  Vigilius,  and  the  other  patriarchs,  on  which  account 
Valesius  even  in  his  time,  in  his  notes  to  this  passage  in 
Evagrius,  gave  expression  to  the  supposition  that  he  had  con- 
founded the  decrees  of  the  Synod  of  Constantinople  under 
Mennas  (A.D.  543,  or  as  Valesius  thought,  538)  with  those  of 
the  fifth  (Ecumenical  Synod ;  and  we  agree  with  him  in  this 
the  rather  that  other  ancient  documents,  e.g.  the  minutes  of 
the  Constantinopolitan  Synod  of  A.D.  536,  were  erroneously 
appended  to  the  Acts  of  the  fifth  (Ecumenical  Synod.  Cf. 
Du  Pin,  Ic. 

(c)  We  certainly  possess  no  strong  and  decisive  proof  that 
the  fifteen  anathematisms  belong  to  the  Constantinopolitan 
Synod  of  the  year  543  ;  but  some  probable  grounds  for  the 
opinion  may  be  adduced — 

a.  It  is,  for  example,  beyond  doubt,  and  attested1  by 
Liberatus  and  Secundus,  two  contemporaries,  that  the  edict  of 
the  Empeor  Justinian  to  Mennas  of  Constantinople,  Vigilius 
of  Home,  Zoilus  of  Alexandria,  Ephraim  of  Antioch,  and 
Peter  of  Jerusalem,  was  subscribed  by  these  patriarchs,  and 
specially  by  the  bishops  assembled  at  Constantinople  with 
Mennas,  i.e.  at  the  <rvvo§os  ev§r)nov<ra  demanded  by  the 
Emperor,  and  at  the  same  time  anathema  was  pronounced 
upon  Origen  and  his  propositions.  Facundus,  in  par- 
ticular, says  that  the  condemnation  of  Origen  was  re- 
peated (iterata),  i.e.  as  at  Constantinople,  so  at  Home, 
Alexandria,  etc.2 

/9.  Whilst  thus  demonstrably  and  quite  in  accordance  with 
the  nature  of  the  case,  anathematisms  were  pronounced  upon 
Origen  at  the  <rwo8o9  evSrjpovcra  called  on  his  account,  it  is 
not  absolutely  certain  that,  at  the  fifth  Synod  also,  there 
were  only  transactions  of  a  general  kind  on  the  subject  of 
Origen.  Of  this  there  is  no  trace  in  the  Acts  of  the  Synod, 
except  in  a  single  passage  (canon  11,  sess.  iv.,  see  below), 

1  Liberat.  Ereviar.  c.  23,  I.e. ;  Facundus,  Defensio  trium  capitum,  lib.  i.  c.  2, 
in  Galland.  Biblioth.  PP.  t.  xii.  p.  667. 

1  Liberat.  Breviar.  c.  23  ;  Facundus,  Defensio  trium  capitum,  lib.  i.  c.  2. 


and  this  is  critically  suspicious.1  In  this  connection  it  is 
very  significant  that  Popes  Vigilius  and  Pelagius,  who  lived 
at  that  very  time,  and  Gregory  the  Great,  who  is  only  a  little 
later,  speak  at  length  of  the  decrees  of  the  fifth  (Ecumenical 
Synod,  but  make  not  the  least  reference  to  a  decree  of  that 
Synod  against  Origen.2 

7.  It  is  certainly  most  improbable  that  the  fifth  CEcumenical 
Council  drew  up  fifteen  anathematisms  against  Origen,  since 
the  celebrated  Origenist,  Theodore  Ascidas,  was  not  only 
present  at  this  Council,  but  was  of  the  greatest  influence 
there,  and,  in  fact,  was  the  real  originator  of  it. 

S.  When,  further,  we  compare  the  fifteen  anathematisms 
against  Origen  with  those  which  are  found  at  the  close  of 
the  imperial  letter  to  Mennas  and  the  other  patriarchs,  and 
which  were  recommended  for  acceptance,  there  is  a  visible 
similarity  between  them ;  and  the  fifteen  seem  to  be  nothing 
else  than  a  more  complete  copy  of  the  ten  anathematisms 
of  the  Emperor,  adopted  by  the  a-vvo&os  ev^rj^ovaa  (of  the 
year  543). 

€.  Certainly,  if  we  took  for  granted  that  the  <7v*>o8o<?  evBij- 
fiova-a  at  Constantinople  had  done  nothing  further  than  give  a 
simple  subscription  of  the  imperial  edict,  and  of  the  anathe- 
matisms laid  before  them,  one  could  scarcely  understand  why 
they  had  drawn  up  the  fifteen  now  in  question.  But  the 
Synod  went  more  fully  into  the  matter,  as  was  its  duty,  and 
censured  the  heresies  of  Origen  in  a  more  exact  and  complete 
manner.  If  this  is  in  itself  probable,  it  is  also  testified  by 
Evagrius,  in  the  passage  already  frequently  referred  to,  where 
we  find  several  important  remarks  on  our  Synod  hitherto 
little  regarded,  that  they  first  declared  their  rejection  of 
Origen  and  his  adherents  by  acclamation,  and,  moreover,  sent 
a  synodal  letter  to  the  Emperor,  of  which  Evagrius  gives  us 
three  fragments.  The  first  contains,  by  way  of  introduction, 
the  courteous  address  to  the  Emperor :  "  As  thou  dost  possess 

1  Of.  Walch,  Ketzergesch.  Bd.  viii.  S.  284  f. 

2  Of.  the  writings  on  the  subject  of  the  Popes,  in  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  58  sqq., 
and  p.  61  sqq. ,  p.  433  sqq. ;  and  Gregory  the  Great,  Ep.  ad  Joann.  Constantinop. 
lib.  i.  c.  25,  towards  the  end,  in  Migne,  ed.  Opp.  S.  Gregor.  M.  t.  iii.  p.  478. 
Cf.  Walch,  Ketzerhist.  Bd.  viii.  S.  288  f.  S.  93,  95,  and  106.     Even  Valesius, 
in  his  notes  to  Evagrius,  made  partial  reference  to  this  point. 


a  participation  in  the  soul  of  the  heavenly  eagle,  most 
Christian  Emperor."  The  second  runs :  "  We  thus  flee,  yea 
we  flee  from  these  doctrines  (of  Origen) ;  for  we  know  not 
any  strange  voice,  and  we  have  bound  him,  as  a  thief  and  a 
robber,  with  the  bonds  of  anathema,  and  have  cast  him  out  of 
the  sanctuary."  Finally,  the  third  fragment  says :  "  The 
contents  of  that  which  we  have  done,  thou  wilt  learn  from 
our  written  communication." 

It  can  scarcely  be  doubted  that  this  synodal  letter,  here 
given  by  Evagrius,  had  the  fifteen  anathematisms,  as  the 
principal  part  of  the  synodal  decrees,  connected  with  it  or 
appended  to  it.  Evagrius,  too,  speaks  of  an  appendix,  which 
contained  the  errors  of  the  Origenists,  and  which  communicates 
to  us  the  heretical  utterance  of  Theodore  Ascidas,  with  which 
we  are  already  acquainted,  as  fifth  proposition.  That  this  was 
not  found  among  the  fifteen  anathematisms  has  already  been 
remarked.  But  how  do  we  solve  the  apparent  difficulty  ? 
The  fifth  proposition  in  question  from  Theodore  Ascidas  is, 
properly  considered,  no  anathematism,  and  we  may  with  prob- 
ability assume  that,  as  the  imperial  edict  to  Mennas  (and 
the  Synod)  consisted  of  three  parts :  the  letter  proper, 
twenty-four  passages  from  Origen,  and  ten  anathematisms,  in 
like  manner  the  answer  of  the  Synod  would  be  in  three  parts : 
(1)  the  synodal  letter ;  (2)  quotations  from  writings  and 
utterances  of  Origen  and  the  Origenists  (among  them  Ascidas, 
whom  the  Palestinian  monks  had  specially  denounced,  and  to 
whom  the  Synod  had  every  reason  for  here  referring,  in  order 
to  weaken  his  influence  at  Court),  and  (3)  anathematisms. — 
By  this  assumption,  and  the  explanations  already  given,  we 
think  we  have  removed  the  difficulties,  and  brought  order 
into  the  whole  subject.  The  fifteen  celebrated  anathematisms 
are  as  follows : — 

1.  If  anyone   maintains   the   legendary  pre-existence  of 
souls  and  the  fanciful  apocastasis  (restitution  of  all  things), 
let  him  be  anathema. 

2.  If  anyone  says  that  the  rational  creation  (Trapayoryij) 
has   arisen  from   merely  incorporeal  and  immaterial   spirits 
(voai)  without  number  and  name,  so  that  an  identity  of  all 
has  come  about  by  the  likeness  of  being,  power,  and  energy, 

iv.  15 


as  by  their  (like)  unity  with  the  Word  of  God,  and  (their 
like)  knowledge  of  Him ;  but  that  they  had  become  satiated 
with  the  vision  of  God,  and  had  turned  to  that  which  was 
worse,  everyone  according  to  the  nature  of  his  inclination,  and 
had  assumed  bodies,  finer  or  grosser,  and  received  names,  whilst, 
among  these  powers  there  was  a  difference  both  of  names  and 
of  bodies ;  so  that  some  would  be  and  be  named  cherubim, 
some  seraphim,  principalities,  powers,  dominions,  and  thrones, 
and  angels,  and  however  many  heavenly  orders  there  may 
be, — let  him  be  anathema. 

3.  If  anyone  says  that  the  sun,  the  moon,  and  the  stars 
belong  to  that  unity  of  rational  beings,  and  through  their 
turning  to  the  worse  have  become  what  they  are,  let  him  be 

4.  If  anyone  says  that  spiritual  beings,  in  whom  divine 
love   grows   cold,  are    covered   in   grosser   bodies    like    ours 
and  called  men,  whilst  others  who  reached  the  summit  of 
evil  had  received  cold  and  dark  bodies,  and  are  called  now 
demons  and  evil  spirits,  let  him  be  anathema. 

5.  If  anyone  says  that,  as  of  angels  and  archangels  souls 
are  made,  and  from  souls  demons  and  men,  so  from  men  again 
angels  and  demons  come;  and  every  class  of  the  heavenly 
powers  consists  either  altogether  of  that  which  is  above  or  that 
which  is  below,  or  from  both  together, — let  him  be  anathema. 

6.  If    anyone   maintains    that    there    are   two  kinds    of 
demons,   the   one   consisting  of  human  souls,   the   other    of 
higher,  but  so  deeply  fallen  spirits,  and  that  of  the  whole 
number  of  rational  beings  only  one  Spirit  remained  unaltered 
in  the  divine  love  and  vision,  and  that  this  one  became  Christ, 
and  King  of  all  rational  beings,  and  created  all  bodily  things, 
the  heaven  and  the  earth,  and  whatever  is  between  them ; l 
and  whoever  says  that  the  world  has  come  into  existence, 
since  it  has  elements  in  itself  which  are  older  than  itself,  and 
which  consist  for  themselves, — namely,  the  dry,  the  moist,  the 

1  napayiryiiv  can  in  no  way  be  translated,  as  it  has  hitherto  been,  by 
prsetergressus  or  ' '  passed  over  "  :  "  That  Christ  has  gone  over  to  all  corporeity 
on  heaven  and  earth,"  which  gives  no  sense.  llapeiyui  means  here,  like 
tfo,fa.yuyrt  in  the  second  anathematism,  creare,  producere,  "create,"  "bring 
into  existence."  Suicer,  in  his  Thesaurus,  completely  overlooked  this.  Of. 
Stephani,  s.w.  *apayv  and  vafKyuyYi. 


warm,  and  the  cold,  and  the  pattern  (iSeav)  according  to 
which  it  (the  world)  is  made, — and  that  not  all  the  holy  and 
consubstantial  Trinity,  but  the  vovs  S^/Luotyxyo?,  who  is  older 
than  the  world,  and  gave  it  its  being,  has  constituted  it  by 
making  it  become  (i.e.  made  it  out  of  those  elements), — let 
him  be  anathema. 

7.  If  anyone  says  that  Christ — of  whom  it  is  said  that 
HE  appeared  in  the  form  of  God,  and  before  all  times  was 
united    with    God   the   Word,  and    was   in   these  last   days 
humbled  to  our  humanity — did,  as  they  say,  compassionate 
the  manifold  ruin  of  that  unity  of  Spirits  (to  which  He  also 
belonged),  and  in  order  to  bring  them  back,  passed  through  all 
orders,   took    different  bodies  and   received    different  names, 
became  all  to  all,  among  angels  an  angel,  among  powers  a 
power,  received  among  the  different  orders  of  rational  beings 
a  corresponding  form,  then  received  flesh  and  blood  like  us, 
and  became  a  man  for  men, — whoever  says  this,  and  does  not 
confess  that  God  the  Word   humbled  Himself  and   became 
man,  let  him  be  anathema. 

8.  If  anyone  does  not  confess  that  God  the  Word,  who  is 
of  one  substance  with  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
was  incarnate  and  made  man — one  of  the  Trinity — is  Christ 
in  the  proper  sense,  but  (maintains)  that  HE  (the  Word)  was 
named  Christ  only  by  abuse  (/caTa^/D^o-rt/cw?)  on  account  of 
the  Nous  (created  Spirit)  which  humbled  itself ;  that  this  was 
united  (a-vvdirra))  with  God  the  Word  and  is  Christ  in  the 
proper  sense  ;  and  that  the  Word,  on  account  of  this  union 
with  this  Novs  is  called  Christ,  and  that  HE,  the  Nous,  for 
that  reason,  is  called  God, — whoever  maintains  this,  let  him 
be  anathema. 

9.  If  anyone  maintains  that  it  was  not  the  Word  of  God 
made  flesh  by  assumption  of  a  flesh  animated  by  the  tyvxn 
\&yiKT)  and   voepd,  who   went   down   into  Hades  and    again 
returned  into  heaven,  but  says  that  this  was  done  by  the  so- 
called  (by  them)  Nou9,  of  whom  they  impiously  assert  that 
HE  is  Christ  in  the  proper  sense,  and  has  become  so  through 
knowledge  of  the  Unit, — let  him  be  anathema. 

10.  If  anyone  maintains  that  the  body  of  the  Lord,  after 
the  resurrection,  is  ethereal  and  spherical  in  form,  and  that 


the  other  resurrection  bodies  will  be  so  also,  and  that  after 
Christ  laid  aside  His  true  body — and  so  with  all  other  men 
— the  corporal  nature  passes  into  nothing,  let  him  be 

11.  If  anyone  says  that  the  future  judgment  brings  the 
annihilation  of  the  body,  and  that  the  end  of  the  story  is 
the  immaterial  </>u<rt9,  and  that  in  future  there  will  be  nothing 
material,  but  only  mere  spirit,  let  him  be  anathema. 

1 2.  If  anyone  says  that  the  heavenly  powers  and  all  men 
and  the  devil  and  evil  spirits  unite  themselves  with  the  Word 
of  God  in  precisely  the  same  manner  as  does  that  Nous  whom 
they  call  Christ,  and  who  bears  the  form  of  God,  and,  as  they 
say,    humbled    Himself ;    and    whoever   maintains   that    the 
kingdom  of  Christ  will  have  an  end, — let  him  be  anathema. 

13.  If  anyone  says  that  Christ  (that  Nous}  is  not  at  all 
different  from  the  other  rational  beings,  and  that  neither  in 
substance,  nor  in  respect  of  knowledge,  nor  in  power  and 
energy,  exceeds  all  others,  but  that  all  will  stand  at  the  right 
hand  of  God,  like  the  so-called  (by  them)  Christ,  let  him 
be  anathema. 

14.  If  anyone  maintains  that  one  day  all  rational  beings 
will  again  form  a  unit,  when  the  individuals  and  the  numbers 
are  removed  with  the  bodies ;  and  that  the  destruction  of  the 
worlds  and  the  laying  aside  of  the  bodies  will  follow  upon 
the  knowledge  of  rational  things,  and  that  the  abandonment 
of   names  and  an   identity   of    knowledge    and    person   will 
result ;  further,  at  the  fabled  apocatastasis  only  spirits  alone 
will  remain,  as  it  was  in  the  feigned  pre-existence, — let  him 
be  anathema. 

15.  If  anyone  says  that  the  life  of  spirits  will  then  be 
like  the  earlier  life  when  they  had  not  yet  descended  and 
fallen,  so  that  the  beginning  and  the  end  will  be  like  each 
other,  and  the  end  the  measure  for  the  beginning,  let  him 
be  anathema.1 

1  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  395  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  283  sqq. 





SEC.  258.   Origin  of  the  Controversy  of  the  Three  Chapters. 

IN  order  to  divert   the   Emperor    Justinian   and    also,    as 
Evagrius  adds  (iv.  37),  the  theologians  of  that  period  from 
the   persecution  of   the    Origenists,  Theodore  Ascidas,  arch- 
bishop of  Csesarea  in  Cappadocia,  of  whom  we  have  already 
heard,    stirred   up    the    controversy    of    the  three   chapters. 

1  Of  the  copious  literature  on  the  controversy  of  the  three  chapters  and 
the  fifth  (Ecumenical  Synod,  the  following  treatises  deserve  special  mention  : 
(1)  The  comprehensive  Dissertatio  Historica  de  Syiiodo  quinta  of  the  Augustinian 
and  Cardinal  Henry  Noris,  published  first  at  Padua,  A.D.  1673,  in  connection 
with  his  celebrated  Historia  Pelagiana,  and  afterwards  printed  repeatedly,  best 
in  the  first  volume  of  the  edition  by  the  Ballerini  of  the  collected  works  of 
Cardinal  Noris,  Verona  1729,  pp.  550-820.  There  is  a  certain  connection 
between  the  Dissertatio  and  the  Historia  Pelagiana.  The  Augustinian  Noris 
wanted  to  show  his  autipelagian  zeal,  not  only  in  the  Historia  Pelagiana,  but  it 
concerned  him  greatly  to  prove  that  the  real  originator  of  Pelagianism,  Origen, 
had  been  anathematised  by  the  fifth  (Ecumenical  Synod.  The  Jesuit  Peter 
Halloix  had  denied  this  in  his  work,  Origines  defensus,  sive  Origenis  Adamantii 
Preab.,  amatoris  Jesu,  vita,  virtutes,  documenta,  item  veritatis  super  ejus  vita, 
doctrina,  statu,  exacta  disquisitio,  ad  sanctissimum  D.  N.  Papam  Innocentium  X. 
(Liege  in  fol.  1648) ;  and  in  his  defence  had  severely  attacked  the  fifth 
(Ecumenical  Synod.  To  him  Noris  opposed  his  great  and  most  learned  treatise, 
in  order  to  defend  the  credit  of  the  Synod,  to  prove  its  confirmation  by  several 
Popes,  to  put  in  a  clear  light  many  particulars,  especially  chronological  points  in 
regard  to  the  controversy  of  the  three  chapters  ;  chiefly,  however,  to  prove  that 


Although  a  leader  of  the  Origenists  at  that  time,  yet  in  order 
that  he  might  not  lose  his  position  and  influence  at  Court, 
where  he  resided  almost  continually,  he  had  assented  to  the 
rejection  of  Origen ;  but  self-preservation  now  bid  him  give  a 
different  direction  to  the  Emperor's  passion  for  dogmatising. 
When  Justinian  was  occupied  with  the  notion  of  drawing  up 
an  extensive  document  with  the  view  of  reuniting  the 
Acephali,  a  sect  of  the  Monophysites,  to  the  Church  (see 
vol.  iii.  sec.  208),  Ascidas,  together  with  some  friends, 
represented  to  him  that  there  was  a  much  shorter  and  surer 
way  to  that  end,  and  it  might  spare  him  the  trouble  of  a 
lengthy  treatise,  if  he  would  only  pronounce  an  anathema  on 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  and  his  writings,  on  the  letter  of 
Bishop  Ibas  of  Edessa  to  the  Persian  Maris,  and,  finally,  on 
those  writings  of  Theodoret  which  had  been  put  forth  in 

Origen  was  twice  anathematised  by  the  fifth  Oecumenical  Synod,  the  first  time 
alone,  before  those  eight  sessions  in  which  the  matter  of  the  three  chapters  was 
treated,  the  Acts  of  which  alone  are  still  extant ;  the  second  time,  after  those 
eight  sessions,  and  this  time  in  connection  with  two  of  his  principal  adherents, 
Didymus  the  Blind  and  the  deacon  Evagrius,  a  friend  of  Basil  the  Great  and 
Gregory  Nazianzen.  (2)  In  opposition  to  Noris,  the  Jesuit  John  Gamier  wrote 
his  Dissertatio  de  V.  Synodo,  and  appended  it  to  his  edition  of  the  Chronicon 
Liberati,  Paris  1675,  8vo  (reprinted  in  the  twelfth  volume  of  Gallandi,  Bill. 
Patrum,  p.  163  sqq.).  He  afterwards  revised  this  treatise  once  more,  and 
inserted  it  with  many  other  dissertations  in  his  edition  of  the  works  of 
Theodoret,  in  the  Actuarium  Operum  Tlieodoreti,  published  after  his  death  by 
Hardouiu,  reprinted  in  the  fifth  volume  of  Schulze's  edition  of  the  works  of 
Theodoret.  Much  in  this  treatise  of  Garnier's  is  very  acute,  something  also 
correct,  but  many  statements  are  rash,  arbitrary,  and  inaccurate,  and  on  the 
whole  it  is  seen  to  be  written  in  a  spirit  of  opposition  to  Noris.  (3)  In  defence 
of  Noris  against  Gamier  came  forth  the  learned  priests  of  Verona,  the  two 
brothers  Ballerini,  countrymen  of  Noris,  in  a  Defensio  dissertationis  Norisiante 
de  Synodo  V.  adversus  dissertationem  Patris  Garnerii,  in  the  fourth  volume  of 
their  edition  of  the  works  of  Cardinal  Noris,  pp.  985-1050.  They  also 
elucidated  the  history  of  the  controversy  of  the  three  chapters  in  the  third  book 
of  their  Observationes  to  the  works  of  Noris  (in  the  fourth  volume  of  the  works 
of  Cardinal  Noris,  p.  945  sqq.),  and  in  their  treatise,  De  Patriarchatus  Aqui- 
leiensis  origine  (ibid.  p.  1051  sqq.).  With  great  expansion,  but  also  with  tasteless 
discursiveness,  and  breaking  up  the  matter,  Walch  treated  the  controversy  of 
the  three  chapters  in  the  eighth  volume  of  his  History  of  Heresies,  S.  4-468. 

(5)  Noel  Alexander  gave  an  extract  from  Noris  in  the  dissertations  on  the  sixth 
century  in  his  Historia  Ecclesiastica,  t.  v.  pp.  436-454,  ed.  Venet.  1778,  fol. 

(6)  To  this  belongs  also  the  later  monograph  of  Dr.  Punkes  (afterwards  pro- 
fessor at  the  archiepiscopal  seminary  at  Freising),    Papst  Vigilius  und  der 
Dreicapitelstreit,  Miinchen  1865. 


defence  of  Nestorius  and  against  Cyril  and  the  Synod  of 
Ephesus.1  This  suggestion,  which,  as  Liberatus  indicates 
(I.e.),  was  supported  by  the  Empress  Theodora,  who  had 
Monophysite  tendencies,  was  not  without  favouring  circum- 
stances, for,  in  fact,  the  Severians  had  declared,  in  the  religious 
conference,  A.D.  533  (see  vol.  iii.  sec.  208,  and  above,  sec. 
246),  that  one  of  the  reasons  why  they  could  not  accept  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon  was  that  Ibas  and  Theodoret  were  there 
declared  to  be  orthodox.2  The  Emperor  entered  into  -the 
proposal  and  issued  an  edict,  in  which  he  pronounced  the 
threefold  anathema  required,  and  thus  provoked  the  con- 
troversy of  the  three  chapters. 

By  /ce<f>d\aia,  Capitula,  were  generally  understood  some 
propositions  drawn  up  in  the  form  of  anathematisms,  which 
threatened  with  excommunication  everyone  who  maintained 
this  or  that.  Thus  the  twelve  well-known  anathematisms  of 
Cyril  were  constantly  entitled  his  twelve  ice^dXaia.  Similar 
teefaiXaia  were  also  contained  in  the  edict  which  the  Emperor 
Justinian  now  issued.  We  see  this  partly  from  the  few  frag- 
ments of  it  still  extant  (see  below  in  this  section),  and  also 
from  a  quite  similar  later  edict,  the  o/zoXtxyta  Trio-Tews  'lova-Tt,- 
avov  avrofcpdropos  Kara  rpiwv  K€<f>a\ai(i)v  (see  below).  In 
the  latter  he  says :  "  He  wishes  to  draw  up  only  a  few 
Ke<j>d\aia  in  the  interest  of  the  orthodox  faith,"  and  among 
these  the  most  interesting  are  /ce</>a\cua  12  to  14,  as  follows : 
"  Whoever  defends  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  ...  let  him  be 
anathema  "  ;  "  Whoever  defends  certain  writings  of  Theodore 
...  let  him  be  anathema " ;  and  "  Whoever  defends  the 
impious  letter  written  by  Ibas  .  .  .  let  him  be  anathema." 
Three  K€(f>d\at,a  quite  similar  to  these  seem  to  have  been 
contained  in  the  first  edict  of  the  Emperor  (on  this  subject), 
which  is  now  lost ;  and  we  see  from  this  in  what  sense  the 
expression  "  rpia  K€(j>d\aia,"  or  "  three  chapters,"  was  originally 
to  be  understood.  To  be  exact,  we  should  have  to  say : 
"  Whoever  obeys  the  imperial  edict,  subscribes  the  rpia 

1  This  is  related  by  the  contemporary  Liberatus,  archdeacon  of  Carthage, 
in  his  Breviarium  causes,  Nestorianorum  et  Eutyckianorum,  c.  24  ;  in  Galland. 
Biblioth.  Patrum,  t.  xii.  p.  160  ;  also  in  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  699. 

-  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  829  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  1170. 


tcetpaXaia ;  whoever  does  not,  rejects  them  " ;  but  the  expres- 
sion did  not  attain  to  this  form ;  but  rather  by  the  rpLa 
K€<f>d\aia  quite  generally,  not  those  three  propositions,  but  the 
persons  and  writings  designated  in  them ;  and  when  we  meet 
with  the  expression  rpia  /ce<f)d\aia,  or  tria  capitula,  in  the 
later  imperial  edicts,  in  the  minutes  of  the  fifth  (Ecumenical 
Synod,  in  papal  and  other  letters,  we  understand  by  this :  (1) 
the  person  and  writings  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia ;  (2)  the 
writings  of  Theodoret  for  Nestorius  and  against  Cyril  and 
the  Synod  of  Ephesus;  and  (3)  the  letter  of  Ibas  to  the 
Persian  Maris.  The  fifth  (Ecumenical  Synod,  in  its  closing 
sentence,  thus  declares :  "  Prsedicta  igitur  tria  capitula  an- 
athematisamus,  id  est,  Theodorum  impium  Mopsuestenum 
cum  nefandis  ejus  conscriptis,  et  quse  impie  Theodoritus  con- 
scripsit,  et  impiam  epistolam,  quse  dicitur  Ibse." l  To  a  similar 
effect  the  Emperor  Justinian  expresses  himself  in  that  decree 
which  was  read  at  the  first  session  of  the  fifth  Council :  "  That 
he  had  consulted  the  bishops  respecting  the  impia  tria 
capitula,  and  that  these  impia  tria  capitula  were  nevertheless 
by  many  defended." 2  In  the  letter  of  Pope  Vigilius  to 
Bishop  Eutychius  of  Constantinople,  in  which  he  gave  his 
approval  to  the  fifth  (Ecumenical  Council,  we  read :  ra  irpo- 
etprjfjieva  roivvv  rpla  acre^fj  K€<f)a\aia  avadefjutri^ofiev  fcal 
KaraKpivofj,€v,  rovreo-Ti  TOV  a<re/3r)  deoBwpov,  K.T.\.S  Facundus, 
bishop  of  Hermiane,  in  Africa,  a  contemporary  of  these  events 
and  a  zealous  opponent  of  the  imperial  edict,  named  his 
extensive  treatise  in  defence  of  Theodore,  etc.,  JAbri  orii.  pro 
defensione  trium  capitulorum;*  and  Liberatus  (I.e.)  relates  that 
the  Emperor  had  demanded  the  damnatio  trium  capitulorum. 
Thus  by  tria  capitula  are  generally  understood,  not  the  three 
propositions  of  the  imperial  edict,  but  the  well-known  three 
points,  Theodore  and  his  writings,  some  writings  of  Theodoret, 
and  the  letter  of  Ibas.  Only  in  the  6p,o\oyla  of  the  Emperor, 
and  probably  in  his  first  edict,  was  the  original  meaning  of 
the  /ce<f)d\aia  maintained.  In  the  present  superscription, 

1  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  376  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  194. 

2  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  181  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  56  sq. 

3  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  417  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  216. 

4  Galland.  Biblioth.  Patrum,  t.  xi.  p.  665  sqq. 


probably  not  original,  of  the  work  of  Facundus,1  as  in  the 
Chronicle  of  S.  Isidore  of  Seville,  we  meet  with  the  expres- 
sion, tria  Chalcedonensis  concilii  capitula;2  and  this  has  been 
translated  by  several  scholars  as  "  three  decrees  of  the  Council 
of  Chalcedon  " ;  others,  with  greater  probability,  "  three  ques- 
tions which  were  discussed  in  that  Synod."3  But,  in  the 
first  place,  whilst  at  Chalcedon  there  were  discussions  on  Ibas 
and  Theodoret,  there  were  none  respecting  Theodore  of  Mop- 
suestia,  nor  was  any  decree  on  him  put  forth.  Besides,  no 
decrees  of  Chalcedon  were  ever  put  forth  with  the  predicate 
impia  capitula,  or  acre/3?}  icefyaXaia.  That  this  statement  and 
translation  is  not  admissible  is  finally  shown  by  this,  that  the 
Emperor  Justinian,  Pope  Vigilius,  and  all  who  rejected  the 
three  chapters,  expressly  declared  that  they  had  not  in 
the  least  impugned  the  decrees  of  Chalcedon. 

How  it  was,  however,  that  these  three  chapters  could 
become  the  subject  of  a  violent  controversy,  will  be  under- 
stood when  we  consider  more  closely  the  three  men  around 
whose  persons  or  writings  the  controversy  was  carried  on. 
We  have  already  seen  (vol.  iii.  sec.  127)  that  Bishop  Theodore 
of  Mopsuestia,  formerly  a  priest  at  Antioch,  was  the  head  of 
that  Syrian  theological  school  which,  in  opposition  to  Apollin- 
arianism,  endeavoured  to  hold  fast,  in  a  new  way,  the  truth 
of  each  of  the  two  natures  of  Christ.  The  ecclesiastical  term 
"  Incarnation  of  God  "  appeared  to  him  dangerous,  as  though 
it  taught  a  change  of  God  the  Word  into  a  man ;  and  for 
this  reason  he  wished  to  recognise  only  an  indwelling  or 
evoiKT)<ri<;  of  the  Word  in  a  man,  and  thereby  divided  the  one 
Christ  into  two,  into  the  man  and  the  dwelling  in  Him,  or, 
into  the  temple  and  the  God  who  dwelt  in  it.  Thus  Theodore 
of  Mopsuestia  was  the  real  father  of  that  heresy  which 
received  its  name  from  one  of  his  disciples,  Nestorius.  Theo- 
dore had  died  before  the  Nestorian  controversy  broke  out 
(A.D.  428),*  and  this  is  undoubtedly  the  reason  why  the  third 

1  Cf.  Walch,  Ketzerhiat.  Bd.  viii.  S.  438. 

2  Cf.  Noris,  De  Synodo,  v.  t.  1,  Opp.  ed.  Bailer,  p.  690. 

3  Cf.  Ernesti,  Neue  theolog.  Bibliothek,  Bd.  vii.  S.  737. 

4  Not  in  the  year  427.     Cf.  Ballerini,  Defensio  dissertationis  Norisicuue,  c.  6, 
in  Noris,  Opp.  cd.  Bailer,  iv.  1025. 


(Ecumenical  Synod  at  Ephesus  condemned  Nestorius,  and  made 
no  reference  to  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  (see  voL  iii.  sec.  134). 
In  the  same  way  his  writings  were  spared,  when  the  Emperor 
Theodosius  n.  had  those  of  Nestorius  burnt.1  Taking  advantage 
of  this  circumstance,  the  confessed  and  secret  Nestorians 
hastened  to  circulate  the  books  of  Theodore  and  those  of 
the  still  earlier  Diodorus  of  Tarsus,  his  master,  and  to  translate 
them  into  Syriac,  Armenian,  and  Persian.  The  principal  seat 
of  this  movement  was  Edessa  in  Mesopotamia,  in  consequence 
of  which,  in  the  year  435,  the  bishop  of  this  city,  Nabulas, 
felt  himself  obliged  to  point  out  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia 
publicly  as  the  real  father  of  the  Nestorian  heresy,  and  to 
draw  the  attention  of  all  his  colleagues  to  this  fact.  Several 
of  these  were  of  a  different  view,  and  ascribed  the  action  of 
Nabulas  to  personal  resentment.  The  great  Cyril  of  Alex- 
andria, on  the  contrary,  and  the  celebrated  Proclus  of  Con- 
stantinople, recognised  the  correctness  of  the  contention  of 
Nabulas,  and  issued  memorials  warning  against  the  errors  of 
the  Mopsuestian.  They  demanded  an  anathema  to  be  pro- 
nounced upon  him ;  and  Cyril  turned  to  the  Emperor  for 
this  purpose. 

Along  with  these  orthodox  opponents  of  Theodore,  how- 
ever, there  appeared  also,  at  the  same  time,  monks  and 
Armenians  of  Monophysite  tendencies  as  accusers,  and  pointed 
out  many  orthodox  statements  of  his  as  heresies.  This 
caused  Cyril  and  Proclus  on  the  other  side  to  defend  the 
Mopsuestian,  and  to  abstain  from  the  demand  for  an  anathema. 
Theodosius  n.  also  issued  an  edict  to  the  effect  that  the  peace 
of  the  Church  should  be  maintained,  and  that  it  should  not 
be  allowed  that  men  who  had  died  in  the  communion  of  the 
Catholic  Church  should  be  blackened  (see  vol.  iii  sec.  160). 
Thus,  for  the  time,  the  controversy  was  kept  under,  but  not 
settled,  and  was  therefore  sure  to  break  out  again  on  the  first 
opportunity.  It  was  natural  that  the  Monophysites  should 
come  forward  from  the  beginning  as  violent  opponents  of  the 

1  See  above,  vol.  iii.  sec.  160.  In  the  original  text  of  the  imperial  decree 
only  the  books  of  Nestorius  are  condemned  to  the  fire,  but  in  the  text  which  is 
given  among  the  Acts  of  the  fifth  (Ecumenical  Synod  the  writings  of  Theodore 
have  the  same  punishment  inflicted  upon  them. 


Nestorian  Theodore.  Even  Eutyches  had  accused  him  and 
Diodorus  of  Tarsus  of  heresy  (see  vol.  iii.  sec.  171),  whilst  the 
Nestorians  honoured  the  Mopsuestian  as  one  of  the  greatest 
teachers,  and  do  so  to  this  day.  The  judgments  of  the 
orthodox  theologians  were  doubtful  On  the  one  side,  they 
could  not  deny  the  relationship  between  Theodore  and  Nestor- 
iauism ;  on  the  other  hand,  however,  they  would  not  go 
against  what  had  been  done  by  Cyril  and  the  Emperor 
Theodosius  IL,  and  the  fourth  (Ecumenical  Synod  of  Chalce- 
don  let  it  pass,  without  any  remark  in  the  way  of  correction, 
when,  at  their  tenth  session,  that  passage  from  the  letter  of 
Ibas  was  read,  in  which  he  said :  "  The  tyrant  of  Edessa 
(Bishop  Nabulas),  under  the  pretext  of  religion,  has  perse- 
cuted even  the  dead,  e.g.  the  late  Theodore  (of  Mopsuestia), 
this  herald  of  the  truth  and  teacher  of  the  Church,"  and  so 
forth  (see  sec.  1 9  6  in  vol.  iii.).  When  the  Emperor  Justinian, 
a  hundred  years  afterwards,  demanded  an  anathema  upon  the 
person  and  writings  of  Theodore,  the  one  party  might  regard 
this  as  well  founded,  whilst  the  other  could  think  it  was 
wrong  at  so  late  a  period  to  anathematise  a  bishop  who  had 
died  in  Church  communion  more  than  a  hundred  years  ago ; 
besides  that,  the  reputation  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  must 
in  that  way  suffer. 

The  second  man  about  whom  the  controversy  of  the 
three  chapters  turned  was  Theodoret,  the  learned  bishop  of 
Cyrus  in  Syria,  already  so  often  mentioned.  He  had  also 
been  a  disciple  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia ;  and  if  he  did  not 
go  so  far  as  he  did,  yet  he  had,  in  former  times,  frequently 
maintained  that,  by  the  doctrine  of  Cyril  and  Ephesus,  the 
natures  in  Christ  are  mingled.  With  peculiar  violence  he 
had  in  particular  opposed  the  anathematisms  of  Cyril  as 
Apollinarian  (sec.  132  in  vol.  iii.).  At  the  third  (Ecumenical 
Synod  at  Ephesus  he  appeared  in  company  with  his  patriarch, 
John  of  Antioch,  and  he  was  one  of  the  most  zealous  members 
of  the  Conciliabuluni  which  opposed  the  Ephesine  Synod  and 
decreed  the  deposition  of  Cyril  and  Memnon  (sec.  135).  For 
this  reason  he  was,  like  others,  excommunicated  until  he 
should  amend  (sec.  139).  When  the  Emperor  summoned 
deputies  of  both  parties,  as  well  of  the  Ephesine  Synod  as  of 


the  Antiochene  faction,  Theodoret  was  among  the  latter,  came 
in  this  capacity  to  Chalcedon,  distinguished  himself  here 
also  by  his  polemic  against  Cyril,  and  would  know  nothing  at 
all  of  Church  communion  with  him.  He  was  pained  by  the 
Emperor  taking  the  orthodox  envoys  with  him  to  Constantin- 
ople, whilst  the  Antiochenes  were  obliged  to  remain  at  Chalce- 
don ;  and  still  endeavoured  by  speeches,  letters,  etc.,  to  labour 
for  what  he  thought  the  true  doctrine,  and  cried  "  Woe  "  over 
the  persecutors  of  Nestorius  (sees.  145,  147,  148,  149). 

After  his  departure  from  Chalcedon  we  meet  with  him 
again  active  against  Cyril  at  Synods  and  by  writings  (sees.  151 
152);  soon,  however,  the  explanation  of  Cyril,  that  he  taught 
no  mingling  of  the  natures,  gave  him  great  satisfaction  (sec 
153).  That  he  was  not  really  a  Nestorian  he  showed  by 
his  offer  to  anathematise  all  who  separate  the  one  Lord  into 
two  Sons,  as  well  as  by  his  endeavouring  to  gain  over  other 
Oriental  bishops  for  the  restoration  of  Church  unity.  When 
the  union  between  Cyril  and  John  of  Antioch  was  actually 
effected,  Theodoret  was  in  agreement  with  the  dogmatic  part 
of  the  document  of  union,  but  would  not  at  all  consent  with 
the  anathematising  of  Nestorius,  which  was  contained  in  it, 
as  he  held  his  friend  to  be  innocent  in  the  principal  matter, 
and  considered  him  to  be  misunderstood  (sees.  158,  159). 
He  took,  therefore,  for  some  time  a  middle  position  between 
the  decided  friends  and  the  complete  opponents  of  the  union, 
went,  therefore,  temporarily  with  his  Patriarch  John,  became 
reconciled  again  after  a  conference  with  him,  and  entered  into 
the  union,  after  John  had  allowed  that  anyone  who  was 
unwilling  need  not  subscribe  the  deposition  of  Nestorius  (sec. 

When,  after  the  death  of  Cyril,  the  Monophysite  party 
began  to  grow  powerful  under  the  protection  of  his  successor 
Dioscurus,  Theodoret  again  came  under  suspicion  of  Nestor- 
ianism,  and  although  he  put  forth  a  clear  confession  of  his 
orthodoxy,  Dioscurus  nevertheless  pronounced  him  excom- 
municated. The  Emperor,  too,  became  very  ill-disposed 
towards  him,  and  forbade  him  to  appear  at  the  next  Synod 
unless  he  were  expressly  summoned  (sees.  170,  175).  After- 
wards he  was  deposed  at  the  Robber-Synod,  and  banished  by 


the  Emperor  (sees.  179,  181).  He  appealed  to  the  Pope, 
and  petitioned  for  an  impartial  examination  of  his  case  at 
another  Synod.  The  new  Emperor  Marcian  recalled  him ; 
but  he  could  not  at  once  enter  upon  his  bishopric,  because 
the  Synod  of  Chalcedon  had  first  to  decide  on  the  subject. 
When  he  appeared  at  the  eighth  session,  he  was  required 
immediately  to  pronounce  anathema  upon  Nestorius.  He 
hesitated,  and  at  first  was  unwilling  to  do  so  unconditionally ; 
yet  he  put  his  own  orthodoxy  out  of  doubt,  and  at  last  con- 
sented to  the  anathema,  whereupon  he  received  his  bishopric 
back,  and  was  troubled  no  more  to  his  death  (A.D.  457). 

The  Emperor  Justinian,  as  we  know,  had  not  wished  to 
anathematise  the  person  nor  all  the  works  of  Theodoret,  but 
only  those  written  against  Cyril  and  the  Synod  of  Ephesus 
and  those  in  defence  of  Nestorius ;  and  he  was  materially  so 
far  right,  as  the  books  in  question  contained,  in  fact,  much ' 
that  was  erroneous,  particularly  many  unfair  attacks  upon 
Cyril  and  the  third  Synod,  many  misrepresentations  of  the 
doctrine  of  Cyril  and  the  third  Synod,  and  a  too  favourable 
exposition  of  the  Nestorian  theses.  From  the  orthodox  side, 
therefore,  it  was  possible  to  give  an  unhesitating  assent  to 
the  anathema  required  in  regard  of  these  matters.  As,  how- 
ever, the  Synod  of  Chalcedon  restored  Theodoret  without 
further  demand,  and  pronounced  no  sentence  on  any  part  of 
his  works,  many  of  the  orthodox  supposed  that  the  edict  of 
the  Emperor  contained  an  attack  upon  the  credit  of  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon,  and  the  Monophysites  could  not  fail,  in 
fact,  to  use  it  in  this  sense.  This  scruple  could  not  but  arise 
when  it  was  remembered  that  formerly  at  the  religious  con- 
ference at  Constantinople,  A.D.  533,  the  Severians  had  made 
the  restoration  of  Theodoret  a  reproach  against  the  Council 
of  Chalcedon  (sec.  246),  and  had  maintained  that  he  had  not 
pronounced  anathema  on  Nestorius  at  Chalcedon  honestly,  but 
only  in  appearance  and  deceptively.1 

Finally,  in  regard  to  the  letter  of  Ibas  to  Maris,  we  have 
already  seen  (sec.  160)  that,  when  Nabulas  came  forward 
with  his  violent  polemic  against  the  dead  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia,  Ibas  was  a  priest  of  Edessa,  and  a  great  admirer 

1  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  829  ;  Hardouiu,  t.  ii.  p.  1170. 


of  Theodore.  After  the  death  of  Nabulas  he  became  himself 
bishop  of  Edessa.  About  twelve  years  later  some  of  his 
clergy  brought  a  complaint  against  him,  before  the  Patriarch 
Dominus  of  Antioch,  on  several  grounds,  particularly  because 
he  had  circulated  the  writings  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia, 
had  allowed  himself  in  heretical  expressions,  and  had  made 
his  dissolute  nephew,  Daniel,  bishop  of  Carrae,  and  had  spent 
Church  property  (sec.  169).  In  order  to  the  investigation 
of  the  matter  two  commissions  had  to  meet  in  Berytus  and 
Tyre  (about  the  year  448) ;  the  subject,  however,  came 
up  at  the  ninth  and  tenth  sessions  of  Chalcedon,  at  which 
the  earlier  minutes  of  Berytus  and  Tyre  were  read  again 
(sec.  196).  The  chief  Corpus  delicti  was  the  letter  to  Maris, 
bishop  of  Hardaschir  in  Persia,  ascribed  to  Ibas,  and  this  was 
naturally  also  read  at  Chalcedon.  We  gave  a  short  extract 
from  it  under  the  tenth  session  of  Chalcedon  (sec.  196).  The 
letter  judges  Cyril  and  the  first  Ephesine  Synod  with  distinct 
unfairness  and  injustice,  misrepresents  the  history  of  the 
Synod,  accuses  Cyril  of  having  held  an  Apollinarian  doctrine 
before  the  union  with  the  Orientals,  and  casts  the  same 
reproach  against  the  Synod  of  Ephesus  because  they  approved 
the  anathematisms  of  Cyril.  Later,  however,  he  says,  Cyril 
and  his  adherents  had  corrected  themselves,  and,  in  the  union, 
had  accepted  the  true  faith.  The  letter  also  will  not  admit 
the  Communicatio  idiomatum.  In  such  a  view  of  the  matter 
an  anathema  on  him  (Ibas)  was  fully  justified,  in  an  objective 
sense,  for  he  was  really  in  a  high  degree  offensive  and  insult- 
ing, not  only  towards  the  friends  of  Cyril,  but  also  towards  all 
who  respected  the  third  (Ecumenical  Synod.  This  part  of  its 
contents  was  capable  of  only  one  meaning. 

On  the  contrary,  the  letter  offered  also  a  side  in  respect 
to  which  double  and  opposed  judgment  was  possible.  The 
author  also  declares  in  the  letter  that  he  holds  fast  that 
doctrine  which  had  been  enunciated  at  the  union  between 
Cyril  and  the  Orientals,  and  recognises  the  unity  of  the 
one  Lord  in  the  duality  of  the  natures.  If  importance  were 
attached  to  this,  it  might  be  inferred  that  Ibas  had  been 
peculiarly  orthodox,  and  only  through  a  misunderstanding 
had  earlier  opposed  Cyril,  and  later  denied  the  Communicatio 


idiomatum.  But  we  might  also  understand  that  the  author 
was  only  in  appearance  at  the  point  of  view  of  the  union, 
and  that  his  continued  denial  of  the  Communicatio  idiomatum, 
and  also  the  manner  in  which  he  still  expressed  himself  in 
this  letter  respecting  Cyril  and  the  third  (Ecumenical  Council, 
showed  that  then,  too,  he  was  still  heretical,  and  that  the 
whole  letter  was  penetrated  with  the  Nestorian  leaven. 

The  Emperor  and  the  members  of  the  subsequent  fifth 
(Ecumenical  Synod  had  taken  the  latter  view ;  the  defendants 
of  the  three  chapters,  on  the  contrary,  formed  a  more  favour- 
able and  kindly  judgment  on  the  letter  and  its  author.  On 
this  side  could  be  urged  the  circumstance  that  Ibas  at  the 
transactions  at  Tyre  (sec.  196)  had  declared  his  adhesion  to 
the  third  (Ecumenical  Synod,  and  at  the  same  time  had  him- 
self recognised  and  retracted  a  leading  error  in  the  letter. 
He  was  therefore,  and  because  he  gave  assurance  of  his 
orthodoxy,  agreed  to  the  anathema  on  Nestorius,  and  could 
present  a  good  testimony  from  his  clergy,  acquitted  by  his 
judges  at  Tyre  (sec.  196).  It  is  true  that  the  Eobber-Synod 
deposed  him  again,  but  the  Synod  of  Chalcedon  annulled  this 
sentence  again,  declared  the  accusations  brought  against  Ibas 
to  be  groundless,  and  restored  him  to  his  bishopric.  This 
judgment  was  preceded  by  the  reading  of  the  Acts  already 
passed  in  this  matter,  the  minutes  of  Berytus  and  Tyre,  the 
letter  to  Maris,  and  the  testimony  of  the  clergy  of  Edessa  in 
favour  of  Ibas ;  and  the  Synod  thereupon  decreed  the  restora- 
tion of  Ibas  on  the  condition  that  he  should  pronounce  anew 
an  anathema  upon  Nestorius  and  his  heresy.  On  the  letter 
to  Maris  in  specie  the  Synod  pronounced  no  judgment. 
Whatever  was  Nestorian  in  it  Ibas  must  have  abjured  by  the 
required  anathema  on  Nestorius.  Some  few  of  the  voters  at 
Chalcedoii,  however,  namely,  the  papal  legatees  and  Bishop 
Maximus  of  Antioch,  expressed  themselves  in  such  a  manner 
as  to  imply  that  in  this  very  letter  to  Maris  (on  its  bright 
side)  they  had  discovered  a  proof  of  the  orthodoxy  of  Ibas. 
That  this  explanation  of  their  words  is  the  correct  one,  we 
shall  discuss  later  on,  in  the  third  chapter  of  this  book,  when 
we  treat  of  the  confirmation  of  the  fifth  (Ecumenical  Council 
by  Pope  Vigilius ;  and  in  any  case  it  was  not  surprising  that 


many  among  the  orthodox  should  see,  in  the  demand  for  an 
anathema  upon  the  letter,  an  insult  to  the  Synod  of  Chalcedon. 

In  order  to  pacify  them  the  Emperor  and  his  friends 
endeavoured  to  bring  proof  that  Ibas  had  never  acknowledged 
that  letter  to  be  his,  nay,  that  at  the  Synod  at  Chalcedon  he 
had  denied  the  authorship  rather  clearly.  But  the  proof  was 
insufficient ;  and  also  the  way  in  which  they  sought  to  explain 
the  votes  of  the  papal  legates,  etc.,  and  to  show  in  an  artificial 
manner  that  the  Synod  of  Chalcedon  had  specially  rejected 
that  letter,  could  give  no  satisfaction.1  Many  of  the  orthodox, 
particularly  Bishop  Facundus  of  Hermione  in  his  Defensio 
trium  capitulorum,  also  for  some  time  Pope  Vigilius,  maintained, 
likewise  going  too  far,  the  exact  contrary,  that  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon  had  clearly  approved  the  letter  of  Ibas  to  Maris, 
and  declared  it  orthodox,  and  that  an  anathema  upon  it  was 
not  possible  without  detracting  from  that  Synod.  From  all 
this  we  see  how  the  imperial  edict  for  the  condemnation  of 
the  three  chapters  found,  and  must  have  found,  differences  of 
judgment  among  the  orthodox. 

If,  now,  we  look  a  little  closer  at  this  edict  itself,  the 
contemporary  Liberatus  (I.e.),  in  the  first  place,  tells  us  only 
that  the  Emperor  demanded  an  anathema  upon  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia  and  the  letter  of  Ibas.  Of  Theodoret  he  is  silent 
at  first ;  but  some  lines  later  he  says :  "  Theodore  Ascidas 
counselled  the  Emperor  cunningly  to  declare  an  anathema  on 
the  three  chapters  in  a  special  imperial  decree,"  i.e.  not  to 
bring  the  subject  in  a  more  uncertain  manner  before  a  Synod, 
but  to  decide  it  by  a  peremptory  imperial  decree.  "  There- 
upon," he  says,  "  the  Emperor  actually  issued  a  book  (a 
detailed  edict)  in  damnationem  trium  capitulorum."  To  a 
similar  effect  Facundus  also,  in  lib.  i.  c.  2  of  his  Defensio 
trium  capitulorum,  speaks  first  of  the  letter  of  Ibas,  the 
anathematising  of  which  had  been  advised  to  the  Emperor ; 
but  in  other  places,  and  in  the  preface  to  the  work  mentioned, 
he  says  expressly  that  an  anathema  had  been  demanded  and 
pronounced  upon  some  writings  of  Theodoret,  and  on  the 
person  and  writings  of  Theodore.2 

1  Such  artificial  proofs  will  meet  us  later.     See  sees.  263,  271,  276. 

2  FacnnduB, Pro  defensione  trium  capit.inGa.\]a.nd.£ibl.Palr'um,t.  xi.  p.  665. 


Liberatus  maintains  (I.e.)  that  Theodore  Ascidas  gave  this 
advice  to  the  Emperor  chiefly  on  two  grounds :  First,  because 
he  was  himself  not  merely  an  Origenist,  but  also  an  Acephalus, 
and,  moreover,  because,  as  an  Origenist,  he  hated  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia,  who  had  written  against  Origen.  There  is  no 
doubt  that  Liberatus  was  here  mistaken,  as  no  one  else  says 
anything  of  the  Monophysitism  of  Ascidas,  and,  in  fact, 
he  is  not  to  be  suspected  of  it.1  The  opposition  of  the 
Mopsuestian  to  Origen,  however,  had  reference  only  to  his 
exegetical  methods,  and  certainly  did  not  give  occasion  for 
the  controversy  of  the  three  chapters.  The  thorough  accurate 
account  of  its  origin  is  given  by  the  man  who  must  have 
been  best  informed  on  the  subject,  Bishop  Domitian  of 
Ancyra,  the  friend  of  Ascidas,  and  the  second  head  of  the 
Origenists.  In  his  letter  to  Pope  Vigilius  he  writes  that, 
"  on  account  of  the  doctrine  of  the  pre-existence  and  apoka- 
tastasis  they  had  unjustly  attacked  and  condemned  Origen  and 
other  holy  and  celebrated  teachers.  Those  who  wished  to 
defend  such  doctrines  had  not  been  able  to  do  so ;  therefore 
they  had  completely  given  up  this  controversy,  and  had 
begun  another  over  Theodore,  bishop  of  Mopsuestia,  and 
had  endeavoured  to  get  an  anathema  pronounced  upon  him, 
with  the  intention  of  abolishing  the  movement  that  was 
going  on  against  Origen  "  (ad  dbolitionem  ut  putdbant  eorum, 
quce  contra  Originem  mota  constituerant  or  constiterant). 
Facundus,  who  communicates  this  fragment  of  a  letter  (I.e. 
lib.  iv.  c.  4,  p.  708,  and  lib  i.  c.  2,  p.  667),  infers  from  it 
•  illegitimately  that  the  Origenists  had  acted  only  from  revenge, 
and  for  this  reason  had  sought  to  stir  up  disturbance  in  the 
Church  (I.e.  lib.  i.  c.  2) ;  but  he  may  be  right  in  this,  when 
he  declares  that  the  Monophysites,  who  hitherto  had  laboured 
in  vain  to  destroy  the  credit  of  the  Synod  of  Chalcedon,  had 
now  made  use  of  the  Origenists,  in  order  through  these,  who 
on  this  point  (in  regard  to  the  Council  of  Chalcedon)  were  not 
suspected,  to  carry  out  their  plans. 

That  the  first  edict,  in  which  Justinian,  at  the  wish  of 

1  Noris  remarks  (Diss.  Hist,  de  Synsxlo  quinta,  c.  3,  p.  581,  in  t.  i.  of  Bal- 
lerini's  edition  of  the  works  of  Cardinal  Noris)  properly,  that  the  Africans  had 
reckoned  that  opponent  of  the  three  chapters  among  the  Acephali. 

IV.  1 6 


Ascidas,  published  the  three  anathematisms  of  which  we  have 
heard,  was  drawn  up,  not  by  the  Emperor  himself,  but  by  the 
Monophysites  and  Origenists,  Facundus  maintains  repeatedly, 
and  professes  to  know  that  these  had  prefixed  the  name  of 
the  Emperor  by  imposition  (lib.  ii.  c.  1).  This,  however,  is 
only  faf on  de  parler,  in  order  the  more  easily  to  attack  the 
edict  in  question ;  and,  in  fact,  he  only  means  to  say  that 
they  had  outwitted  the  Emperor,  as  this  edict  stands  in  con- 
tradiction with  other  decrees,  particularly  his  declarations  of 
faith  (lib.  ii.  c.  1).  Theodore  Ascidas  is  generally  considered 
to  be  the  author  of  this  imperial  edict.  Walch,  however 
(Ketzerhist.  Bd.  viii.  S.  152),  has  contested  this  view,  as 
Ascidas  expressly  asserted  later,  on  his  reconciliation  with 
Vigilius,  that  he  had  written  nothing  in  this  matter.  But 
Walch  is  here  plainly  wrong,  since  Theodore  Ascidas,  Mennas, 
and  their  associates  in  the  letter  in  question,1  say  only  they 
had  written  nothing  that  was  contrary  to  the  union  effected 
between  the  Emperor  and  the  Pope  of  the  year  550  (sec.  261). 
Thus  it  is  only  the  authorship  of  the  later  imperial  edict,  the 
6/j,o\oyla,  which  is  denied. 

We  can  no  more  settle  with  certainty  the  time  of  the 
composition  than  we  can  the  authorship  of  the  first  edict,  as 
this  has  been  lost  together  with  the  subscription.  Baronius 
removed  it  into  the  year  546,  whilst  Cardinal  Noris  (De 
Synodo,  v.  c.  3)  showed  that  it  was  probably  issued  towards 
the  end  of  the  year  543,  or  at  the  beginning  of  544.  In 
opposition  to  him  the  learned  Jesuit  Gamier  contended 
for  the  year  545;2  but  the  Ballerini,  Walch,  and  others 
concerned  in  the  reckoning  of  Noris,  have  also  given  the 
preference  to  the  beginning  of  A.D.  544.3  It  is  incontestable 
that  the  edict  cannot  have  been  drawn  up  before  the  year 
543,  for  it  is  plain  that  it  was  issued  after  the  anathema  on 
Origen,  and  to  draw  the  Emperor  away  from  this.  It  cannot, 
however,  be  placed  later  than  545,  for  in  this  year  Pope 

1  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  63  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  11. 

-  Garnerii  Diss.  de  V.  Synodo  generali,  c.  3,  in  Schulze's  ed.  of  the  works  of 
Tlieodoret,  t.  v.  p.  528. 

:t  Norisii  Opp.  ed.  Bailer,  t.  iv.  p.  1002  ;  Walch,  Ketzerhist.  Bd.  viii.  IS. 
153  f. 


Vigilius  travelled  from  Rome  to  Constantinople,1  and  the 
edict  had  been  issued  some  time  before  his  departure.  We 
said  that  the  edict  in  question  had  been  lost.  Baronius  (ad 
ann.  546,  n.  10),  Mosheim  (Inst.  Hist.  Eccks.  p.  249),  and 
others  thought  that  we  might  find  its  contents  in  the  later 
6fio\oyui  of  the  Emperor,  of  which  we  shall  hereafter  have  to 
speak  more  fully ;  but  Noris  has  completely  disproved  this ; 
and  all  subsequent  writers,  particularly  the  Ballerini  and 
Walch,  have  justly  coincided  with  him.2  To  give  only  a  few 
reasons,  we  note :  In  the  6fj,o\oyta,  among  other  things,  men- 
tion is  made  of  that  Synod  at  Mopsuestia,  summoned  by  the 
Emperor,  which  was  not  held  until  the  year  550,  whilst 
our  edict  was  drawn  up  in  the  year  544.  Moreover,  we  do 
not  find  in  the  6fio\oyla  those  fragments  which  Facundus 
communicates  from  the  first  edict  of  the  Emperor.  Of  these 
fragments  there  are  three.  The  first  occurs  in  Facundus 
(I.e.  lib.  ii.  c.  3),  and  contains  the  anathematismus :  "  Si  quis 
dicit,  rectam  esse  ad  Marim  impiam  epistolam,  quse  dicitur 
ab  Iba  esse  facta,  aut  ejus  assertor  est,  et  non  magis  anathe- 
mati  subjicit,  utpote  male  tractantem  sanctum  Cyrillum,  qui 
dicit  quia  Deus  Verbum  factus  est  homo,  et  ejusdem  Sancti 
Cyrilli  12  capitulis  detrahentem,  et  primam  Ephesinam 
synodum  impetentem,  Nestorium  vero  defendentem,  laudan- 
tem  autem  Theodorum  Mopsuestiae,  anathema  sit."  3 

A  second  fragment,  in  Facundus  (lib.  iv.  c.  4,  I.e.  p.  709), 
runs :  "  Si  quis  dicit  hsec  nos  ad  abolendos  aut  excludendos 
sanctos  patres,  qui  in  Chalcedonensi  fuere  concilio,  dixisse, 
anathema  sit."  The  third  fragment,  finally  (in  Facundus,  ii.  3), 
in  its  content,  is  connected  with  the  first,  and  contains  no 
anathematism,  but  the  words :  "  Oportet  aperte  inspicere  ad 
Marim  epistolam,  omnia  quidem  sine  Deo  et  impie  dicentem, 
illud  tantuinmodo  ostendentem  bene,  quia  ex  illo  Theodorus 
per  Orientem  in  ecclesia  anathematizatus  est."  Further  infor- 

1  This  is  stated  by  the  contemporary,  Victor  of  Tununum,  in  his  Chronicwt,  in 
Galland.  I.e.  t.  xii.  p.  230.     Cf.  Noris,  Diss.  de  Synodo  V.  c.  3;  and  Walch,  I.e. 
S.  134  and  165  f.,  and  under  S.  816,  note  1. 

2  Noris,  De  Synodo  V.  c.  3,  t.  i.  p.  581  ;  and  the  Observationes  of  the  Bal- 
lerini in  t.  iv.  p.  948  of  their  edition  of  the  works  of  Cardinal  Noris ;  Walch, 
I.e.  S.  151. 

8  In  Gallaud.  I.e.  t.  xi.  p.  682. 


mation  in  regard  to  the  nature  of  the  first  imperial  edict  is 
given  by  the  African  Bishop  Pontianus,  in  his  letter  to  the 
Emperor  Justinian,1  in  which  he  says  that  the  Emperor's 
letter  contains  first  a  correct  explanation  of  the  faith;  and  at 
its  close  a  demand  that  an  anathema  should  be  pronounced 
upon  Theodore,  on  certain  writings  of  Theodoret,  and  on  the 
letter  of  Ibas. 

The  first  imperial  edict,  as  Facundus  declares,  was  again 
altered  by  the  Origenist  and  Monophysite  counsellors  of  the 
Emperor,  and  instead  of  the  longer  formula  of  anathema 
against  the  letter  of  Ibas  given  above  (Fragment  i.),  the  shorter 
was  substituted :  "  Si  quis  dicit,  rectam  esse  ad  Marim  impiam 
epistolam,  aut  earn  defendit,  et  non  anathematizat  earn,  ana- 
thema sit."2  This  later  edition  is  called  by  Facundus  the 
Formula  subscriptionis,  whilst  he  designates  the  earlier  as  the 
Epistola,  damnationis.  As  reason  for  this  alteration  he  states 
that,  in  the  first  formula,  only  some  parts  of  the  letter  had 
been  rejected  as  objectionable,  namely,  the  passages  against 
Cyril,  etc.,  but  that  now  the  Monophysites  had  demanded  an 
anathema  on  the  letter  in  general,  so  that  its  orthodox  con- 
tent as  well,  the  doctrine  of  the  two  natures,  might  seem  to 
be  anathematised.  Walch  (I.e.  p.  151  f.)  supposes  that  the 
Emperor  Justinian  himself  had,  at  a  later  period,  withdrawn 
his  edict,  as  he  was  obliged  to  bring  the  controversy  of  the 
three  chapters  before  a  Synod,  and  for  this  reason  it  had  been 
so  soon  lost. 

The  first  from  whom  the  Emperor  demanded  the  sub- 
scription of  the  edict  was  the  Patriarch  Mennas  of  Con- 
stantinople. He  hesitated  at  first,  and  declared  that  we 
must  not  imperil  the  credit  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  and 
that  he  would  do  nothing  without  the  apostolic  see.  At 
last,  however,  he  subscribed ;  but  after  they  had  promised 
him  on  oath  that,  in  case  the  bishop  of  Eome  should  not 
agree,  his  subscription  should  be  given  back  to  him.  In  the 
same  way  Ephraim,  patriarch  of  Antioch,  would  not  agree ; 
but  when  he  was  threatened  with  deposition,  he  also  sub- 
cribed,  his  office,  as  Facundus  (iv.  4)  remarks,  being  dearer 

1  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  45  ;  Hardouin,  t.  vii.  p.  1. 

*  Facundus,  Dcfensio  trium  CMpit.  lib.  ii.  c.  3,  in  Gallaud.  I.e.  t.  xi.  p.  682&. 


to  him  than  the  truth.  Similar  weakness  and  inconsistency 
were  shown  by  the  Patriarch  Peter  of  Jerusalem.  When, 
at  the  beginning,  a  company  of  monks  visited  him  (for  what 
purpose  Facundus  does  not  say),  he  declared,  with  an  oath, 
that  whoever  agreed  with  the  new  decree  attacked  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon.  In  spite  of  this  he  agreed  himself 
later  on. 

Finally,  Zoilus,  patriarch  of  Antioch,  wrote  very  soon  and 
spontaneously  to  Pope  Vigilius,  that  he  also  had  subscribed 
under  constraint.1  Similar  compulsion  was  brought  to  bear 
upon  the  other  bishops,  and  it  was  resolved  to  extort  the 
subscriptions  of  the  whole  episcopate,  in  order,  says  Facundus,2 
that  it  might  appear  as  though  the  whole  Church  were 
opposed  to  the  Synod  of  Chalcedon.3  Liberatus  also  speaks 
of  this  constraint,  remarking  that  some  had  been  caught  by 
presents,  and  others  frightened  by  the  threat  of  banishment.4 
In  particular,  Mennas  compelled  the  bishops  under  him  to 
subscribe,  as  a  number  of  them  complained  in  a  memorial 
to  Stephen,  the  papal  legate.5  Gamier  assumed  that  Mennas, 
for  this  purpose,  held  a  special  Synod  at  Constantinople ;  but 
there  is  nothing  said  of  this  in  the  original  documents.6  In 
order  to  produce  a  better  inclination  to  a  subscription  of  the 
imperial  edict,  it  was  from  the  beginning  declared  that  the 
question  would  also  be  put  on  the  subject  to  the  Roman 

1  I.e.  lib.  iv.  c.  4,  p.  708. 

2  I.e.  lib.  ii.  c.  3,  p.  6826 ;  and  Contra  Mocianum,  ib.  p.  8136. 

3  Justinian  himself  certainly  says  only  that  "he  had  put  the  question  to  the 
bishops  how  they  thought  about  the  three  chapters  "  (in  his  letter  to  the  first 
session  of  the  fifth  (Ecumenical  Council) ;  but  we  must  remember  that  the  appli- 
cation of  the  rack  was  called  "putting  the  question." 

4  Liberatus,  I.e.  c.  24,  p.  160. 

8  In  Facundus,  I.e.  lib.  iv.  c.  4,  p.  708. 

6  Cf.  Gamier,  Diss.  de  V.  Synodo,  in  Schulze's  edition  of  the  works  of 
Theodoret,  t.  v.  p.  534,  and  Walch,  Ketzerhist.  Bd.  viii.  S.  69  and  156  f. 
Gamier  thinks  that  there  are  still  extant  fragments  of  the  Acts  of  this  Synod, 
namely  (a)  the  Greek  letter  of  the  Emperor  to  the  Synod,  reprinted  in  Mansi, 
t.  ix.  p.  582,  and  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  322,  and  according  to  the  general  opinion 
identical  with  the  imperial  letter  addressed  to  the  fifth  Synod  (see  below,  sec. 
267)  ;  (b)  also,  that  the  fragment  of  an  answer  to  the  imperial  letter,  appended 
to  the  latter,  belongs  to  this  earlier  Synod.  Cave  and  Basnage  agreed  with 
Gamier,  whilst  he  was  opposed  by  the  Ballerini  in  their  edition  of  the  works 
of  Cardinal  Noris,  t.  iv.  p.  1007  sq. 


Church ;  but  Facundus  shows  (I.e.  iv.  3)  how  deceptive  such 
a  supplementary  inquiry  would  have  been,  since  everyone 
who  judged  otherwise  than  the  edict  on  the  matter  would 
have  been  previously  anathematised. 

Cunning  and  violence  succeeded,  by  degrees,  in  gaining 
the  whole  East  to  subscribe  the  edict.  The  Latins  were  not 
so  pliant.  The  papal  legate,  Stephen,  who  resided  in  Con- 
stantinople, immediately  reproached  the  Patriarch  Mennas 
for  his  weakness,  and  broke  off  Church  communion  with 
him.1  The  same  was  done  by  Bishop  Dacius  of  Milan,  who 
was  residing  at  Milan  at  that  time,  and  subsequently  went 
thence  to  Sicily  (hinc  reversum),  in  order  to  make  the  Pope 
acquainted  with  what  had  happened.2  At  the  same  time, 
or  soon  afterwards,  there  were  also  residing  in  Constantinople 
several  African  bishops,  among  them  Facundus  of  Hermione. 
That  this  was  so,  and  that  Facundus,  at  the  instigation  of  his 
colleagues,  even  before  the  arrival  of  Pope  Vigilius  in  Con- 
stantinople, composed  a  memorial  to  the  Emperor  against 
the  condemnation  of  Theodore,  etc.,  we  see  from  his  Prcefatio 
to  his  Defensio  trium  capitulorum?  Moreover,  he  and  his 
friends  broke  off  Church  communion  with  Mennas  and  all 
adherents  of  the  imperial  edict.4  Before  Facundus  had  quite 
finished  that  document,  Pope  Vigilius  arrived  at  Constantin- 
ople ;  and  when,  afterwards,  there  was  begun,  under  his 
presidency,  an  examination  of  the  points  of  controversy,  the 
Pope  suddenly  broke  up  the  proceedings,  and  required  that 
each  one  of  the  bishops  present  should  give  in  his  vote  in 
writing  (see  below,  sec.  259). 

For  this  business  the  imperial  Magister  Officiorum  allowed 
Facundus  no  more  than  seven  days,  in  which  were  two  holy 
days,5  on  which  account  he  hastily  took  a  good  deal  out  of 
his  now  half-ready  book  into  his  new  Eesponsio,  and  added 
more.  Subsequently,  with  greater  leisure,  he  completed  and 

1  Facundus,  I.e.  lib.  iv.  cc.  3  and  4,  pp.  707«  and  708a. 

2  Facundus,  I.e.  lib.  iv.  c.  3,  p.  707. 

3  In  Galland.  I.e.  t.  xi.  p.  665. 

4  Facundus,  Contra  Mocwnum,  in  Galland.  I.e.  p.  813. 

5  As  Vigilius  published  his  Judicatum  immediately  afterwards,  on  Easter 
Eve,  548,  Gamier  supposed  that  those  seven  days,  with  two  holy  days,  should 
l>e  placed  immediately  before  548. 


improved  the  first  work,  and  in  particular  corrected  many 
patristic  passages,  which  he  must  formerly  have  drawn  from 
inferior  manuscripts,  and  which  must  have  been  transferred 
from  this  inaccurate  text  into  that  Eesponsio.  He  remarks 
this  expressly  for  the  enlightening  of  those  readers  who 
might  compare  the  Eesponsio  with  his  improved  principal 
work — Defensio  trium  capitulorum.  It  is  therefore  quite 
a  mistake  to  say,  as  was  formerly  done,  that  Facundus  com- 
posed the  Defensio  itself  in  seven  days. 

When  the  copy  of  the  imperial  decree  came  to  Eome,  a 
favourable  judgment  of  it  by  the  learned  deacon,  Ferrandus 
of  Carthage,  was  brought  forward ;  and  the  Roman  deacons, 
Pelagius  and  Anatolius,  wrote  to  him,  asking  him,  together 
with  the  bishop  of  Carthage  and  other  zealous  and  learned 
men,  to  give  them  counsel  as  to  what  in  general  they  should 
do.  Already,  in  the  question  of  inquiry  of  the  Romans  it 
was  expressed  that  the  Acephali,  with  the  assistance  of  so- 
called  orthodox  men,  had  stirred  up  the  whole  affair  to  the 
prejudice  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  and  the  Epistola  dog- 
inatica  of  Leo  I. ;  and  Ferrandus  replied  that  the  letter  of 
Ibas,  which  the  (Ecumenical  Synod  of  Chalcedon  had  ap- 
proved, and  generally  the  three  chapters,  could  not  be 
objected  to,  because  otherwise  the  estimation  of  all  synodal 
decrees  might  be  called  in  question.1  In  consequence  of  this 
the  whole  of  Africa  and  Rome  was  opposed  to  the  wishes 
of  the  Emperor,  and  an  interesting  evidence  of  this  sen- 
timent is  given  in  the  still  extant  letter  of  the  African 
Bishop  Pontianus  to  the  Emperor,  recently  referred  to. 
Justinian,  however,  now  summoned  Pope  Vigilius  to  Con- 
stantinople, in  order  to  get  him  to  assent  to  his  plans. 
Vigilius  obeyed  unwillingly,  for  he  foresaw  the  inconveniences 
which  awaited  him ;  but  he  was  forced  to  take  the  journey, 
as  a  letter  of  the  Italian  clergy  testifies;2  and  Victor  of 
Tununum  also  asserts  that  the  Emperor  had  compelled  him. 
Indeed,  Anastasius  ( Vit.  Pontif.)  professes  to  know  that  the 

1  Facundus,  I.e.  lib.  iv.  c.  3.    The  lengthy  and  learned  answer  of  Ferrandus 
is  still  extant  in  his  Epistola  ad  Pelagium  et  Anatolium,  diacanos  urbis  Roina, 
in  Galland.  t.  xi.  p.  361. 

2  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  152  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  47. 


Empress  Theodora  sent  the  officer  of  State,  Anthemius,  to 
Home  with  orders,  if  the  Pope  did  not  agree  to  come,  to  take 
him  by  force  from  his  palace,  or  even  out  of  any  church 
except  S.  Peter's,  and  carry  him  on  board  ship.  He  says, 
too,  that  this  had  actually  been  done,  and  that  the  Pope  was 
seized  on  the  22nd  of  November,  in  the  Church  of  S.  Cecilia, 
and  that  the  people  had  thrown  stones,  etc.,  at  the  ship  on 
which  he  was  carried  off,  and  had  invoked  hunger  and  pes- 
tilence on  the  imperial  commissioner. 

We  are  assured  by  the  much  more  trustworthy  Facundus, 
that  when  Vigilius  departed  from  Eome  the  whole  of  Home 
entreated  him  not  to  agree  to  the  condemnation  of  the  three 
chapters.  The  same  petition  was  presented  to  him  after  he 
had  arrived  at  Sicily  by  the  Christians  of  Sardinia  and 
Africa.  Here  in  Sicily  he  also  met  with  Bishop  Dacius  of 
Milan,  arrived  from  Constantinople,  and  commended  him 
highly  and  his  own  legate  Stephen  on  account  of  their 
breach  with  Mennas.  Here  also  he  met  an  envoy  of  the 
Patriarch  Zoilus  of  Alexandria,  who  was  instructed  to  inform 
him  that  the  patriarch  had  subscribed  only  under  compulsion. 
Later  on,  when  Vigilius,  after  a  long  stay  of  about  a  year  in 
Sicily,1  sailed  for  the  Peloponnesus,  and  travelled  from  thence 
to  Constantinople  by  land,  over  Hellas  and  Illyricum,  the 
faithful  of  these  two  countries  besought  him  not  to  agree  to 
this  innovation ;  and  he  himself  on  his  journey  wrote  a  letter 
to  Mennas,  in  which  he  expressed  his  strong  disapproval  of 
his  proceedings,  and  of  all  that  had  been  done  in  this  matter, 
and  demanded  a  retractation.2  From  this  it  is  clear  how 
greatly  Victor  of  Tununum  is  mistaken,  when  he  relates, 
under  the  year  543,  that  the  Empress  Theodora  had 
obtained  a  promise  from  Vigilius,  before  he  became  Pope, 

1  Procopius,  De  Bella  Gothico,  lib.  iii.  c.  15,  says  :  "  Vigilius  remained  a  long 
time  in  Sicily."  Noris  and  others  suppose  that  he  had  intended  to  hold  a  Synod 
in  Sicily,  which,  however,  is  very  doubtful.  The  reason  for  his  long  sojourn  in 
Sicily  is  not  known.  Cf.  Punkes,  I.e.  S.  67.  As  Vigilius  arrived  in  Constantin- 
ople, January  25,  547,  as  we  shall  see  presently,  and  tarried  a  year  in  Sicily, 
he  must  have  left  Rome  in  the  year  545. 

-  Facundus,  Defensio,  etc.,  lib.  iv.  cc.  3  and  4.  The  letter  of  Vigilius  to 
Mennas  is,  in  part,  reproduced  verbally  in  the  second  treatise  of  Facundus, 
Contra  Mocianum,  in  Galland.  t.  xi.  p.  814. 


to  anathematise   the   three   chapters.      This   is    an    evident 

SEC.  259. — Pope  Vigilius  arid  his  Judicatum  of 
April  11,  548. 

When  Vigilius  arrived  in  Constantinople,  January  25, 
547,1  he  was  received  by  the  Emperor  with  many  honours. 
According  to  Theophanes  we  might  suppose  that  the  Pope 
had  pronounced  a  condemnation  of  the  three  chapters 
immediately  after  his  arrival ;  but  the  chronicler  condenses 
the  narrative,  and  says  that  Vigilius,  inflated  by  the  friendly 
reception  of  the  Emperor,  had  punished  Mennas  by  separating 
him  from  Church  communion  for  four  months.2  The  Pope 
inflicted  the  same  censure  on  all  the  other  bishops  who  had 
subscribed  the  imperial  edict.3  Naturally,  Mennas  now  had 
the  name  of  the  Pope  struck  out  of  the  diptychs  of  his 
church.4  Gregory  the  Great  professes  to  know  that  Vigilius 
then  pronounced  anathema  also  on  the  Empress  Theodora 
and  the  Acephali,  at  the  very  time  that  Home  was  plundered 
by  the  enemy  (the  Goths).5 

Before  long  Vigilius  altered  his  position  in  the  most 
surprising  manner.  How  this  happened  is  not  fully  known. 
What  is  certain  is,  that  the  Emperor  had  frequent  personal 
intercourse  with  him,  and  also  repeatedly  sent  officers  of 
State  and  bishops  to  him,  to  induce  him  to  agree  with 
Mennas  and  the  rest.6  The  vehement  Facundus  (Lc.  p.  814, 
a  and  J)  maintains  that  no  violence  was  done  to  him,  but 
that  he  was  led  astray  by  ambition  and  by  bribery.  The 

1  This  date  is  found  in  the  appendices  to  the  Chronicle  of  Marcellinus  in 
Sealiger,  Thesaur.  Temper,  p.  54  ;  Noris,  De  Synodo  V.  c.  3,  I.e.  t.  i.  p.  593  ; 
Pagi,  Critica  in  Baronii,  t.  i.  p.  586,  ad  ann.  547,  n.  4.     Cf.  "VValch, 
Kctzerhist.  Bd.  viii.  S.  165. 

2  Theophanes,  Chronographia,  in  Pagi,  ad  ann.  547,  n.  5. 

3  Facundus,  Contra  Afocianum,  in  Galland.  t.  xi.  p.  8146. 

4  Theophanes,  Lc. 

8  Gregory  the  Great,  Epist.  lib.  ii.  ep.  51,  Bendict.  ed.  t.  ii.  p.  615  ; 
according  to  the  earlier  arrangement  of  Gregory's  letters  received  by  Hansi,  lib. 
ii.  ep.  36,  in  vol.  ix.  of  Mansi's  Councils,  p.  1105. 

8  We  see  this  from  the  text  of  an  imperial  edict  given  by  Baluze,  in  Mansi, 
t.  ix.  p.  182  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  57. 


Italian  clergy,  on  the  contrary,  speak  of   the  imprisonment 
and  serious  persecution  of  the  Pope,  and  relate  that  he  said 
on  one  occasion  to  his  persecutors :  "  Contestor,  quia  etsi  me 
captivum  tenetis,  beatum  Petrum  apostolum  captivum  facere 
non   potestis." *      After    some   time,    however,   Vigilius   first 
gave  privately   a  promise   that   he  would  anathematise  the 
three    chapters ; 2    and   the    imperial    Minister    Constantino, 
as  commissioned  by  his  master,  gave   the  assurance  at  the 
seventh  session  of  the  fifth  Council  that  the  Pope  had  given 
this   promise   in   writing  and  by  word  of  mouth,  and  this 
in  the   presence  of    the   Emperor,  his   Ministers,  and   some 
bishops.3     To  this  time  probably  belong  also  the  two  letters, 
containing  these  promises,  from  Vigilius  to  the  Emperor  and  the 
Empress.4    They  are  short,  and  have  almost  verbally  the  same 
contents.     The  one  to  the  Emperor  runs :  "  We  never  were 
heretical,  and  are  not  so.     But  I  demand  the  rights  which 
God  has  granted  to  my  see.     But  your  Piety  must  not  infer 
from  this  that  I  defend  heretics.     Behold,  I  respond  to  your 
irresistible  command,  and    anathematise  the  letter  of    Ibas, 
and   the  doctrines  of   Theodoret,  and  of  Theodore   formerly 
bishop  of  Mopsuestia,  who  was  always  foreign  to  the  Church, 
and  an  opponent  of  the  holy  Fathers.     Whoever  does  not 
confess  that  the  one  only-begotten  Word   of   God,  that    is, 
Christ,  is  one  substance,  and  one  person,  and  unam  operationem 
(fiiav  evepyeiav),  we  anathematise,"  etc.     These  letters  were 
read  subsequently  in  the  seventh  session  of  the  fifth  and  in  the 
third  session  of  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Synod,  and  at  the  latter 
their  genuineness  was  contested  by  the  papal  legates.     This 
led  to  an  inquiry,  the  result  of  which  will  be  given  below,  sec. 
267,  when  we  come  to  treat  of  the  Acts  of  the  fifth  (Ecumenical 
Synod.     For  the  present  it  is  sufficient  to  remark  that  these 
two  letters  are  probably  genuine,  but  interpolated,  and  that 
the  words  unam  operationem  were  inserted  by  a  Monothelite. 
At  the  time  of  Vigilius  there  was  still  a   controversy  as  to 
whether  there  were  one  or  two  operations  and  wills  in  Christ. 

1  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  153 ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  47. 

2  Facundus,  Contra  Mocianum,  p.  813J. 

3  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  347  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  172. 

4  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  351  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  175. 

POPE   VIC.ILIUS  AND   HIS  JUDICATUM  OF  APRIL  11,  548.     251 

When  Vigilius  began  to  change  his  mind,  he  again 
resumed  Church  communion  with  Mennas,  and  his  name  was 
again  received  into  the  diptychs  of  Constantinople.  The 
fact,  however,  stated  by  Theophanes,  that  his  name  was  put  in 
the  first  place  in  the  diptychs  of  Constantinople,  even  before  the 
bishop  of  Constantinople,  did  not  take  place  until  A.D.  552.1 
Theophanes  says  further,  that  it  was  particularly  the  Empress 
Theodora  who  brought  about  the  reconciliation,  and  that  it 
took  place  on  June  29,  the  festival  of  the  Apostles  Peter  and 
Paul,  A.D.  547.2  This  agrees  entirely  with  his  previous  state- 
ment in  regard  to  the  four  months ;  for,  if  Vigilius  arrived 
at  Constantinople  on  January  25,  5 4 7,  and  shortly  afterwards 
broke  off  communion  with  Mennas,  then  four  months  elapsed 
from  that  time  to  the  reconciliation  on  June  29. 

By  the  will  of  the  Emperor  conferences  were  now  begun, 
to  which  nearly  all  the  bishops  present  in  Constantinople  were 
summoned.  After  the  arrival  of  the  Pope,  many  of  the 
bishops  who  had  not  yet  subscribed  the  imperial  edict  had 
betaken  themselves  to  Constantinople,  in  order  to  watch  the 
further  development  of  the  matter  ;  and  Facundus  states  that 
about  seventy  bishops  attended  the  conferences,  besides  those 
who  had  previously  subscribed.3  These  conferences  are  fre- 
quently described  as  a  Constantinopolitan  Synod  of  A.D.  547 
and  548;  e.g.  by  Baronius  (ad  ann.  547,  n.  32  sq.),  Pagi 
(ad  ann.  547,  n.  8),  Walch  (I.e.  S.  171  sq.);  but  Facundus, 
who  was  himself  a  member  of  this  assembly,  and  to  whom  we 
owe  our  information  on  the  subject,  never  uses  the  expression 
Synod,  but  Judicium  and  Eocamen  (I.e.  pp.  665,  813),  calls  the 
Pope  who  presided  over  it  repeatedly  Judex  (I.e.  p.  814),  and 
describes  the  whole  in  such  a  manner  as  to  make  us  under- 
stand that  it  was  a  conference  for  the  examination  of  the 
anathematisms  of  the  three  chapters  laid  before  them  by  the 
Emperor,  a  judicium  or  examen  on  the  question  whether  the 
Pope  could  agree  to  give  the  final  decision,  whilst  the  bishops 
present  had  only  to  give  counsels. 

1  Cf.  the  observations  of  the  Ballerini,  in  Noris,  t.  iv.  p.  949  ;  and  Walch, 
I.e.  8.  171. 

2  Cf.  Noris,  I.e.  c.  4,  t.  i.  p.  595. 

8  Facundus,  Contra  Mocianwn,  in  Gal  land.  t.  xi.  p.  814. 


Facundus  says  quite  distinctly  (I.e.  p.  814),  that  if  the 
votes  given  by  the  bishops  in  writing  had  not  pleased  the 
Pope,  he  would  have  torn  them  up  or  burnt  them,  or  by  his 
own  sentence  he  could  have  invalidated  them  (ea  scindere  vel 
urerc,  aut  per  suam  evacuare  scntentiam).  So  also  we  learn 
from  Facundus  (I.e.  p.  813a),  that  three  such  conferences 
took  place,  and  he  communicates  the  following  particulars 
from  the  gestis  of  the  third.  He  requested  that  the  Pope 
would  institute  an  examination  into  the  question  as  to  whether 
the  letter  of  Ibas  was  really  accepted  (suscepta)  by  the  Synod 
of  Chalcedon  or  not,  since  the  opponents  maintain  that  the 
anathema  on  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  was  actually  no  attack 
upon  the  importance  of  that  Synod,  since  it  had  not  received 
the  letter  of  Ibas  in  which  Theodore  was  commended.  He, 
Facundus,  admitted  often  that  he  had  not  broken  off  com- 
munion with  Mennas,  etc.,  on  account  of  the  anathema  on 
Theodore  in  itself.  He  could  not  indeed  approve  of  this 
anathema,  but  he  regarded  it  partly  as  endurable,  partly  as 
not  particularly  important ;  but  the  aim  of  his  opponents  was, 
by  this  means,  to  undermine  the  authority  of  the  fourth 
(Ecumenical  Synod.1 

It  was  natural  that  this  question  of  Facundus  should  be 
very  inconvenient  for  Pope  Vigilius,  since  he  had  already 
given  private  assurances  to  the  Emperor.  He  would  there- 
fore simply  put  it  aside  by  answering  that  "  this  was  not 
known  to  him  (either  that  the  Synod  of  Chalcedon  had 
received  the  letter  of  Ibas,  or  also  that  the  other  party 
wanted  to  destroy  the  importance  of  that  Synod) " ;  but 
Facundus  now  asked  leave  "  to  bring  proof  that  that  letter 
was  really  received  at  Chalcedon,  and  to  invalidate  all  the 
arguments  of  the  opponents."  Upon  this  Vigilius  broke  up 
the  whole  consultation  in  perplexity,  and  required  a  vote  in 
writing  of  each  of  the  bishops.  The  seventy  bishops,  who 
had  not  hitherto  subscribed,  were  now  individually  plied  by 
the  adherents  of  the  imperial  edict,  and  led  astray  to  declara- 
tions which  were  hostile  to  the  Synod  of  Chalcedon ;  and,  in 
order  that  they  might  not  be  able  to  recant,  they  were 
conducted,  some  days  later,  in  public  procession,  well 
1  Facundus,  Contra  Mocianum,  I.e.  p.  813. 

POPE  VIGILIUS  AND   HIS  JUDICATUM  OF  APHIL  11,  548.      253 

guarded,  to  Vigilius,  in  order  to  present  their  votes  to 

We  have  already  seen  (sec.  258)  that  Facundus,  in  this 
emergency,  drew  up  in  seven  days  an  extract  from  his  work, 
Defensio  triuin  capitulorum,  which  was  not  yet  quite  complete. 
He  further  tells  us  that  Vigilius  immediately  carried  these 
votes  of  the  seventy  bishops  into  the  palace,  where  they  were 
added  to  the  declarations  of  those  bishops  who  had  already 
subscribed.  In  order,  however,  to  excuse  this  conduct,  he 
declared  to  the  party  of  Facundus  that  he  did  not  intend  to 
take  those  votes  with  him  to  Eome,  nor  to  deposit  them  in 
the  Roman  archives,  so  that  it  might  not  be  inferred  that  he 
himself  had  approved  of  them.2 

Soon  afterwards,  on  Easter  Eve,  April  11,  548,3  Vigilius 
issued  his  Judicatum,  addressed  to  Mennas,  which,  as  its  title 
indicates,  professed  to  give  the  result  obtained  by  him  as 
Judex  through  the  conferences  and  votes  (the  judicium  and 
exameri).  Unfortunately  this  important  document  is  also 
lost,  and  up  to  the  present  day  it  has  been  generally  main- 
tained, that  only  a  single  fragment  of  it  has  been  preserved, 
which  is  found  in  a  letter  of  the  Emperor  Justinian  to  the 
fifth  (Ecumenical  Synod,  according  to  the  text  edited  by 
Baluze.  It  was  overlooked  that  five  such  fragments  exist  in 
another  contemporaneous  document. 

First  of  all,  let  us  examine  closely  that  first  fragment.4 
After  the  Emperor  had  said  that  the  Judicatum  issued  by  the 
Pope  (first  to  Mennas)  had  been  made  known  to  all  the 
bishops,  he  gives  the  anathema,  contained  in  it,  on  the  three 
chapters,  with  Vigilius's  own  words :  "  Et  quoniam  quse  Nobis 
de  nomine  Theodori  Mopsuestini  scripta  porrecta  sunt,  multa 
contraria  rectae  fidei  releguntur,  Nos  monita  Pauli  sequentes 
apostoli  dicentis  :  Omnia  probate,  quod  bonum  est  retinete,  ideo- 
que  anathematizamus  Theodorum,  qui  fuit  Mopsuestiae  epis- 
copus,  cum  omnibus  suis  impiis  scriptis,  et  qui  vindicant  eum. 

1  Facundus,  I.e.  p.  813.  2  Facundns,  I.e.  p.  814. 

3  This  date  is  indicated  by   Vigilius  himself  in  his  letter  to  Rusticus  and 
Sebastianus,  in  Hansi,  t.  ix.  p.  353  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  177.     Cf.  Noris,  Lr. 
t.  i.  p.  596,  and  Pagi,  ad  arm.  547,  n.  10. 

4  In  Mausi,  t.  ix.  p.  181 ;  Hardouiu,  t.  iii.  p.  57. 


Anathematizamus  et  impiam  epistolam,  quae  ad  Marim 
Persam  scripta  esse  ab  Iba  dicitur,  tamquam  contrariam  recta; 
tidei  Christianse,  et  omnes,  qui  eani  vindicant,  vel  rectam  esse 
dicunt.  Anathematizamus  et  scripta  Theodoreti,  quae  contra 
rectam  fidem  et  duodecim  Cyrilli  capitula  scripta  sunt.1 

Besides  this  fragment  it  was  known  only  that  Vigilius 
had  introduced  in  his  Judicatum  a  clause  or  caution  to  the 
effect,  that  "  the  importance  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon 
should  not  be  called  in  question."  Noris  and  Natalis 
Alexander2  might  mislead  us  to  the  opinion  that,  with  refer- 
ence to  this,  the  words  in  the  Judicatum  stood  thus :  "  Salva 
in  omnibus  reverentia  Synodi  Chalcedonensis."  But  this 
formula  was  invented  by  Noris  himself,  because  he  found  in 
the  original  documents  that  Vigilius  had  repeatedly  protested 
that  the  Judicatum  contained  nothing  which  could  detract 
from  the  importance  of  the  four  ancient  (Ecumenical  Councils 
or  that  of  his  predecessors  the  Popes.3  The  same  was  testi- 
fied also  by  the  Italian  clergy,  writing  to  the  Frankish 
ambassadors,  "  that  Vigilius,  in  the  Judicatum,  solicite 
monuit,  ne  per  occasionem  aliquam  supradicta  synodus  (of 
Chalcedon)  pateretur  injuriam  " ;  and  that  "  they  had  after- 

1  In  their  edition  of  the  works  of  Cardinal  Noris  (t.  iv.  p.  1036)  the  Ballerini 
endeavour  to  remove  some  doubts  as  to  the  genuineness  of  this  fragment, 
because   (re)   from  no   other  papal  decrees  has  the  Emperor  taken  anything 
verbally  into  his  edicts,  and  (b)  because  Justinian,  at  the  time  when  he  wrote 
this,  was  no  longer  in  possession  of  a  copy  of  the  Judicatwm  (sec.  261).     Both 
grounds  are  untenable.     The  first  is  so  weak  that  it  needs  no  answer  ;  and  as 
regards  the  second,  it  is  incredible  that  the  Emperor  should  have  retained  no 
copy  of  a  document  so   important  as  the  Judicatum.     And  even  if  he  had 
not  possessed  one  himself,  others  would  have  made  copies  of  it.     See  below,  in 
this  section. 

2  Noris,  I.e.  i.   i.    p.    595 ;   Natal.   Alex.   Hist.   Eccl.   Saeculi  vi.  t.  v.    ed. 
Venet.  1778. 

3  Thus  in  his  letter  to  Bishop  Valentinian  of  Tomi :  ' '  Legant  ergo  quae  de 
causa,    quae   hie  mota   est,    ad    fratrem    nostrum    Mennam   .    .   .   scribentes 
legimus  definisse,  et  tune  cognoscent,  nihil  a  nobis,  Deo  nos  custodiente,  com- 
missum  vel  certe  dispositum,  quod  contra  fidem  prsedicationemque  venerandarum 
quatuor  synodorum  .  .  .  reperiatur  aversum,  aut  unius  ex  his,  qui  definitioni 
suprascriptae  Chalcedonensis  fidei  subscripserunt,   tangat  injuriam  ;  vel  quod 
decessorum  praedecessorum  nostrorum  inveniatur,  quod  absit,  constitutis  forte 
contrarium."     Mansi,    t.   ix.    p.    360;    Hardouin,    t.    iii.   p.    182.      Vigilius 
expresses  himself  in  a  similar  manner  in  his  letter  to  Bishop  Aurelian  of  Aries, 
Mansi,  I.e.  p.  362 ;  Hardouiu,  I.e.  p.  183. 

POPE  VIG1LIUS  AND   HIS  JUDICATUM  OF   APRIL   11,  548.     255 

wards  wanted  to  compel  the  Pope  to  anathematise  the  three 
chapters  anew,  without  such  a  clause  or  caution  in  favour  of 
the  Synod  of  Chalcedon,  ut  absolute  ipsa  capitula  sine  Synodi 
Chalcedonensis  mentione  damnaret.1 

So  much  was  formerly  known  of  the  Judicatum.  A 
repeated  dealing  with  the  later  Constitutum  of  Vigilius  (of 
May  14,  553)  led  me  to  see  that  in  this  there  are  five 
more  fragments  of  the  Judicatum  to  be  discovered.  Towards 
the  end  of  the  Constitutum,  Vigilius  mentions  that  his  pre- 
decessors, Popes  Leo  and  Simplicius,  had  repeatedly  and 
solemnly  declared  that  the  decrees  of  Chalcedon  must  remain 
unweakened  in  force,  and  from  this  that  it  was  clear  what 
care  he  (Vigilius)  must  also  take  pro  apostolicce  sedis  rectitu- 
dine  et  pro  universalis  ecclesice  consideratione.  "  Being  long 
mindful,"  he  proceeds,  "  of  this  caution,  in  the  letter  which 
we  then  addressed  to  Mennas,  and  which  (after  it  had  been, 
in  the  presence  of  all  the  bishops  and  the  Senate,  handed  to 
your  Majesty  by  Mennas,  and  by  your  Majesty  with  his 
consent  handed  back  to  us)  we  now  annul,  so  far  as  the  three 
chapters  are  concerned, — in  that  letter  we  provided  that  all 
due  respect  should  be  paid  to  the  Synod  of  Chalcedon,  as  the 
contents  of  that  letter  testify.  In  proof  we  will  add  a  few 
considerations  out  of  many  that  might  be  given."  2 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  by  the  letter  to  Mennas,  here 
referred  to,  the  Judicatum  is  meant,  for  this  agrees  admirably 
with  all  that  is  further  added,  that  Mennas  handed  it  to  the 
Emperor,  and  that  he  in  a  solemn  assembly  had  restored  this 
document  to  the  Pope,  in  order  by  this  means  to  calm  the 
excitement  which  had  arisen  on  that  subject  and  against 
Vigilius.  Cf.  below,  sec.  261.  We  have  therefore  no  doubt 
that  the  five  passages  which  Vigilius  took  into  his  Consti- 
tutum from  the  letter  in  question  to  Mennas  must  be  con- 
sidered as  fragments  of  the  Judicatum.  These  are  mere 
variations  on  the  theme  Salvi  in  omnibus  reverentia  Synodi 
Chalcedonensis,  merely  passages  in  which,  although  he  anathe- 
matised the  three  chapters,  yet  protested  and  maintained  his 

1  That  they  were  mistaken  in  stating  that  such  a  request  was  made  to  the 
Pope,  will  appear  later  OB. 

2  Mausi,  t.  ix.  p.  104  sq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  45. 


adhesion  to  the  Council  of  Chalcedon ;  so  that  no  one  should, 
through  that  anathema,  regard  the  decrees  of  Chalcedon  as 
partially  incorrect  or  as  imperfect.  These  five  fragments 
run : — 

1.  Cum   apud    nos    manifesta    ratione    praeclareat,   qui- 
cumque  in  contumeliam  antefatae  Synodi  aliquid  tentat  agere, 
sibi  potius  nociturum. 

2.  Item    post    alia :      Sed     si    evidenter    nobis    fuisset 
ostensum  in  ipsis  gestis  potius  contineri,  nullus  auderet  tantse 
praesumptionis   auctor   existere,  aut    aliquid,  quod   in  ilium 
sanctissimum  judicium  productum  est,  velut  dubium  judicaret ; 
cum  credendum  sit,  illos  tune  prsesentes  a  prcesenti  rerum 
memoria  dih'gentius,  etiam  praeter  scriptum,  aliqua  requirere 
vel   definire    certius    potuisse,  quod    nobis    nunc   post  tanta 
tempora  velut  ignota  causa  videatur  ambiguum ;  cum  et  hoc 
deferatur   reverentise    synodorum,  ut   et  in   his   quae  minus 
intelliguntur,  eorum  cedatur  auctoritati.1 

3.  Item  post  alia :  Salvis  omnibus  atque  in  sua  perpetua 
firmitate    durantibus,    qua;    in    Nicseno,   Constantinopolitano, 
Ephesino    primo,    atque    Chalcedonensi    venerandis     constat 
conciliis    definita,    et    prsedecessorum   nostrorum    auctoritate 
firmata ;  et  cunctis,  qui  in  memoratis  sanctis  conciliis  abdicati 
sunt,  sine  dubitatione  damnatis ;  et  his  nihilominus  absolutis, 
de  quorum  ab  iisdem  synodis  absolutione  decretum  est.2 

4.  Item  post  alia :  Anathematis  sententiae   eum  quoque 
subdentes,   qui    quaevis   contra    predictam   Synodum  Chalce- 
donensem,  vel  prsesenti,  vel  quaelibet  in  hac  causa  sive  a  nobis 
sive  a  quibuscumque  gesta  scriptave  inveniantur,  pro  aliqua 

1  As  we  do  not  know  the  connection  in  which  this  fragment  stands,  we 
cannot  easily  ascertain  its  meaning.     Vigilius  probably  said:  "If  they  had 
succeeded  in  showing  that  the  anathema  on  the  three  chapters  was  implicitc 
contained  in  that  which  happened  at  Chalcedon,  no  one  would  longer  admit 
this  presumption,  and  regard  as  undecided  (doubtful)  what  the  Synod  of  Chalcedon 
has  settled,  since  the  members  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  were  able  to  examine 
and  decide  much  which  was  not  put  into  writing  (i.e.  without  its  standing  in 
the  Acts)  which  is  now  unknown  to  us  and  seems  unsettled  ;  and  since,  more- 
over, we  owe  reverence  towards  the  Synods,  even  those  of  their  conclusions 
which  are  not  fully  known  are  to  be  respected. 

2  The  sense  is:  "All  shall  remain  in  force  which  the  four  Synods  have 
decreed,  and  the  Popes  have  confirmed.     All  who  were  condemned  by  these 
Synods  remain  condemned,  and  those  who  were  acquitted  remain  acquitted." 

susceperit  firmitate  ;  et  sancta  Chalcedonensis  Synodus,  cujus 
magna  et  inconcussa  est  firmitas,  perpetua  et  veneranda, 
sicut  Nica3iia,  Constantinopolitana,  ac  Ephesina  prima  habent, 
suam  teneant  firmitatem.1 

5.  Item  post  alia  :  Anathematizamus  et  eum  quoque,  qui- 
cumque  sanctam  Nicsenam,  Constantinopolitanam,  Ephesinam 
primam,  atque  Chalcedonensem  sanctissimas  Synodos  in  una 
et  immaculata  fide  de  Apostolis  consonantes,  et  ab  Apostolicae 
sedis  praesulibus  roboratas,  non  et  fideliter  sequitur  et 
;equaliter  veneratur;  et  qui  ea  quse  in  ipsis  conciliis,  quse 
prefati  sumus,  gesta  sunt,  vult  quasi  prave  dicta  corrigere, 
aut  vult  imperfecta  supplere.2 

From  the  letter  of  Vigilius  to  Kusticus  and  Sebastian  we 
learn  that  Kusticus,  a  nephew  of  the  Pope  and  a  deacon,  his 
attendant  in  Constantinople,  at  first  extolled  the  Judicatum 
to  the  echo,  declared  it  to  be  quite  excellent,  and  circulated 
it  without  the  knowledge  or  will  of  the  Pope  in  many  copies.3 
The  deacon  Sebastian  and  other  Eoman  clerics  who  were 
about  the  Pope  had  also  at  first  approved  of  it;  but  they 
afterwards  went  over  to  the  other  party  of  the  Africans,  and 
offered  the  Pope  such  opposition,  that  he  was  obliged  to 
place  them  under  anathema,  which  he  did  in  the  letter  in 

Significant  for  the  point  of  view  of  Vigilius  is  his 
utterance,  three  years  later,  on  the  aim  and  character  of  his 
Judicatum,  in  the  bull  of  excommunication  against  Theodore 
Ascidas.  He  said  that,  "  in  order  to  remove  present  offence, 

1  Sense:  "We  anathematise  everyone  who  regards  anything  as  of  force, 
which,  either  in  the  present  edict  or  at  any  time,  seems  written  by  us  or 
by  others  in  anyway  against  the  Council  of  Chalcedon.  This  Synod,  whose 
solidity  remains  unshaken  and  permanent,  must  have  the  same  force  as  the 
Nicene,"  etc. 

8  "We  anathematise  him  also  who  does  not  faithfully  adhere  to  the  holy 
Synods  of  Nicaea,  Constantinople,  Ephesus,  and  Chalcedon,  which  agree  with 
the  apostolic  doctrine,  and  have  been  confirmed  by  the  Popes,  or  who  does  not 
hold  them  all  in  equally  high  honour,  or  thinks  to  improve  or  complete  any 
part  of  them." 

3  The  Pope  said  that  whoever  wanted  a  copy  of  the  Jiidicalum,  should  ask 
for  it  of  Mennas,  to  whom  it  was  addressed.     Mansi,  I.e.  p.  353  ;  Hardouin, 
/.<?.  p.  177. 

4  In  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  351  sqq.  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  175  sqq. 

IV.  17 


he  had  condescended,  in  order  to  quiet  men's  minds,  he  had 
relaxed  the  severity  of  right,  and  in  accordance  with  the  need 
of  the  time  had  ordered  things  medicinally." l  To  the  same 
effect  the  Italian  clergy  about  this  time,  that  "  Vigilius  had 
at  first  been  unwilling  to  agree  to  the  anathema  on  the  three 
chapters,  but  in  consequence  of  negotiations  (tractatu  habito), 
he  had  ordered  the  matter  sub  aliqua  dispensatione,  carefully 
admonishing  that  the  Synod  of  Chalcedon  must  in  no  way 
suffer  depreciation." 2  We  can  see  that  these  clergy,  as  well 
as  Vigilius,  proceeded  on  the  supposition  that  nothing  could 
be  undertaken  against  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  in  particular, 
as  he  had  died  more  than  a  hundred  years  ago  in  the 
communion  of  the  Church,  and  had  not  been  condemned  by 
the  Council  of  Chalcedon.  In  the  same  way  the  reputation 
of  the  two  other  men  was  not  to  be  attacked,  as  the  Synod 
of  Chalcedon  had  restored  Theodoret  and  Ibas  to  their  sees, 
after  they  both  had  pronounced  anathema  on  Nestorius, 
without  condemning  the  letter  of  the  one,  or  certain  writings 
of  the  other.  But  as,  on  the  other  hand,  the  three  Capitula 
had  given  so  great  offence  to  many,  and  troubled  the  peace 
of  the  Church,  an  anathema  on  them  might  be  justified  as  a 
remedy  for  the  sickness  of  the  time,  and  as  a  compromise, 
since,  objectively  considered,  the  anathema  on  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia  and  his  writings,  and  also  that  on  some  writings 
of  Theodoret,  and  on  the  letter  of  Ibas,  might  be  justified.  If, 
therefore,  on  the  other  hand,  an  anathema  should  be  pro- 
nounced over  the  really  reprehensible  three  chapters,  and,  on 
the  other  hand,  should  protect  the  authority  of  the  Council 
of  Chalcedon  in  the  most  effectual  manner,  nothing  wrong 
would  be  done,  and  both  parties  would  be  satisfied.  Cardinal 
Noris  therefore  (I.e.  t.  L  p.  595)  remarks  quite  accurately: 
"  Et  quidem  utrique  parti  si  fecisse  satis  Vigilius  arbitra- 
batur:  Graecis,  quod  tria  capitula  condemnasset ;  Latinis, 
quod  salva  synodo  Chalcedonensi  id  se  fecisse  contestaretur." 

1  Maim,  t.  ix.  p.  59;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  8:   "Pro  scandalo  refrenando 
condescendentes  quorundam  animis,  quos  aliqua  dispensatione  credimus  temper- 
andos,  .  .  .  qusedam   pro  tempore  medicinaliter  existiraavimus    ordinanda." 
Dispensatio=provida  juris  relaxatio.     Cf.  Du  Cange,  Thesawus,  t.  ii.  p.  1545. 

2  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  153  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  47. 


SEC.  260.  Opposition  to  the  Judicatum. 

Soon  after  the  publication  of  the  Judicatum,  the  Empress 
Theodora,  the  great  enemy  of  the  three  chapters,  died,  June 
28,  548  j1  but  her  death  seems  to  have  had  no  influence  on 
the  progress  of  the  controversy.  That  the  Emperor  Justinian 
was  not  quite  contented  with  the  Judicatum,  and  demanded 
a  similar  document  from  the  Pope  without  the  clause  in 
reference  to  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  we  are  told  by  the 
Italian  clergy  in  their  letter  to  the  Frankish  envoys.  As, 
however,  no  one  else  speaks  of  this,  and  the  Emperor 
Justinian  was  always  a  great  admirer  of  the  fourth 
(Ecumenical  Council,  this  intelligence  deserves  little  credit; 
and,  moreover,  the  remark  of  Victor  of  Tununum  rests  upon 
an  anachronism,  when  he  says  ihat  Justinian  now  issued  new 
commands  against  the  three  chapters.2  On  the  contrary,  it  is 
certain  that  an  energetic  opposition  to  the  Judicatum  soon 
arose,  and  Vigilius  was  bitterly  blamed  by  many,  and  accused 
of  treachery.  This  happened  principally  in  Constantinople 
itself,  where  the  Pope  spent  several  years,  because  the 
Emperor  wished  it,  perhaps  also  because  Eome  had  at  that 
very  time  fallen  into  the  hands  of  the  Goths.  Prominent 
among  those  who  were  dissatisfied  with  the  Judicatum  in 
Constantinople  were  Bishop  Dacius  of  Milan  and  Facundus 
of  Hermione.  It  is  well  known  that  the  latter  composed  a 
large  work  in  twelve  books  in  defence  of  the  three  chapters 
and  presented  it  to  the  Emperor,  and  the  only  question  is  as 
to  the  time  of  its  completion  and  presentation.  Victor  of 
Tununum  would  place  it  in  the  eleventh  year  after  the 
consulate  of  Basil.3  According  to  the  ordinary  mode  of 
reckoning,  the  year  551  would  be  signified ;  but,  as  Noris 
has  long  ago  excellently  showed  (I.e.  t.  L  p.  652  sq.),  Victor 
follows  another  mode  of  reckoning.  As  is  known,  Basil  was 
the  last  consul  in  the  year  541  ;  but  for  a  long  time  they 
indicated  the  years  following  by  his  name.  Accordingly  the 

1  Cf.  observations  of  Ballerini  in  works  of  Noris,  iv.  951. 
-  Victor.  Tunun.,  Chron.  ad  ann.  548,  in  Galland.  t.  xii.  p.  230. 
8  In  Galland.  t.  ii.  p.  230.     The  text,  "Eo  tempore  vii.  Facundi-refulsere," 
is  therefore  to  be  corrected  into,  "  Eo  tempore  xii.  libri  Facundi-refulsere." 


year  542  must  be  called  simply  post  Consulatum  Basilii, 
but  the  year  543,  ann.  ii.  post  Cons.  Bas.  Departing  from 
this  manner  of  reckoning,  Victor  designates  the  year 
542  as  ann.  ii.  post  Cons.  Bas.  (regarding  it  as  the  second 
year  of  his  enduring  consulate),  and  thus,  with  him,  ann.  xi. 
post  Cons.  Bas.  is  not  identical  with  551,  but  with  550. 
But  neither  must  we  place  the  composition  of  the  Defensio 
trium  capitulorum,  by  Facundus,  in  the  year  550.  Baronius 
(ad  ann.  547,  n.  32)  thinks  that  the  whole  contents  of  the 
book  point  to  the  conclusion  that  it  was  completed  before  the 
rupture  of  the  author  with  the  Pope,  and  thus  before  the 
issuing  of  the  Judicatum,  and  before  Facundus  took  up  a 
schismatical  position.  In  fact,  Pope  Vigilius  is  never 
attacked  in  this  Defensio,  whilst,  in  his  second  treatise, 
Contra  Mocianum,  Facundus  falls  upon  him  most  violently. 
Yet  Baronius  was  partly  wrong ;  and  the  correct  account  of 
the  matter  is,  that  half  of  the  Defensio  was  composed  before 
the  Judicatum',  but  the  work  was  interrupted  by  the  con- 
ferences (sec.  259),  and  it  was  not  until  the  end  of  these, 
and  so  after  the  appearance  of  the  Judicatum,  which 
followed  directly  after  the  conferences,  that  it  was  completed." 
This  completion,  however,  must  not  be  brought  so  late  as  the 
year  550,  but  rather  to  a  period  immediately  after  the 
appearance  of  the  Judicatum.  Later  on  Facundus  would 
have  written  much  more  violently;  but  at  that  time  the 
tension  between  him  and  the  Pope  had  not  yet  led  to  a 
complete  rupture.  He  still  spared  Vigilius,  so  that  even  in 
the  last  books  of  the  Defensio  he  did  not  refer  to  the 
Judicatum,  and  he  might  then  still  hope  to  bring  about  an 
agreement  with  the  Emperor.  At  a  later  period  he  would 
certainly  have  no  longer  cherished  sanguine  expectations  of 
this  kind,  and  to  such  a  later  time  belongs  the  composition  of 
his  book,  Contra  Mocianum  Scholasticum,  which  blamed  the 
African  bishops  because  they  had  broken  off  communion  with 
Vigilius  after  the  appearance  of  the  Judicatum.  In  this 
book  Facundus  attacks  the  Judicatum  as  a  nefandum.1  He 
had  then,  for  the  sake  of  his  safety,  fled  from  Constantinople, 
and  was  in  a  place  of  concealment 2  known  only  to  his  friends. 
1  Galland.  t.  xi.  p.  816.  2  Ibid.  p.  811. 


The  time  of  composition  falls  between  the  appearance  of  the 
Judicatum  and  that  of  the  Constitutum ;  for  by  the  latter,  in 
which  he  now  defended  the  three  chapters,  Vigilius  had 
again  propitiated  Facundus.  That  the  treatise  in  ques- 
tion should  not  be  removed  to  a  still  later  period,  when 
Vigilius  had  anathematised  the  three  chapters  a  second 
time  and  confirmed  the  fifth  Synod,  we  learn  from  the  fact 
that  Facundus  in  the  treatise  is  quite  silent  on  this  subject. 

We  learn  from  Vigilius  himself  that  at  an  early  period 
some  in  Constantinople  so  strenuously  opposed  him  and  his 
Judicatum,  that  he  had  been  obliged  to  excommunicate  them. 
With  these,  he  says,  his  own  nephew,  the  deacon  Rusticus 
who  had  previously  commended  the  Judicatum  so  highly, 
secretly  associated  himself,  and  stirred  up  others  against  him 
both  in  Constantinople  and  in  Africa.  When  examined  on 
the  subject  he  had,  in  writing,  given  his  assurance  on  oath 
never  again  wilfully  to  infringe  his  obedience  to  the  Pope. 
Nevertheless  he  had  attached  himself  to  the  much  worse 
Eoman  deacon  Sebastian,  who  had  likewise  formerly  com- 
mended the  Judicatum,  and  called  it  a  heaven-descended 
book.  Both  had  cultivated  intercourse  with  the  monks 
Lampridius  and  Felix,  who,  on  account  of  their  opposition  to 
the  Judicatum,  had  already  been  excommunicated  by  the 
general  threat  of  excommunication  contained  in  that  docu- 
ment, and  also,  with  other  excommunicated  men,  had 
arrogated  to  themselves  the  teaching  office,  and  had  written 
to  all  the  provinces  that  "  the  Pope  had  done  something  to 
the  disparagement  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon." 

By  their  position  as  Roman  deacons  it  had  become  possible 
to  them  to  lead  many  astray,  and  thus  through  them  such 
confusions  and  party  fights  had  arisen  in  different  places 
that  blood  had  been  shed  in  the  churches.  Further,  they 
had  ventured  to  assert,  in  a  memorial  to  the  Emperor,  that 
Pope  Leo  I.  had  approved  the  heretical  writings  of  the 
Mopsuestian,  etc.  Vigilius  had  long  tolerated  this,  and,  in 
priestly  patience,  had  deferred  their  punishment  (resecatio), 
hoping  that  they  would  come  again  to  reflection.  As,  how- 
ever, they  had  despised  his  repeated  exhortations,  which  he 
had  conveyed  to  them  by  bishops  and  other  clergy,  and  by 


layman  of  high  standing,  and  had  refused  to  return  either  to 
the  Church  or  to  the  Pope,  he  must  now  punish  them,  and 
herewith  depose  them,  until  they  amended,  from  the  dignity 
of  the  diaconate.  In  the  same  way  the  other  Koman  clerics 
who  had  taken  their  side,  John,  Gerontius,  Severinus,  John, 
and  Deusdedit,  should  be  deprived  of  their  posts  as  sub- 
deacons,  notaries,  and  defensors  until  they  began  to  amend. 
The  like  judgment  shall  befall  the  monk  (abbot)  Felix, 
already  mentioned,  who  presided  over  the  Gillitan  convent  in 
Africa,  and  by  his  levity  scattered  his  monks,1  and  also  all 
those  who  would  keep  up  communication  with  him  or  any 
other  excommunicated  person,  particularly  with  Rusticus  and 
the  others.2 

If  this  sentence  of  excommunication  was  sent  forth  after 
March  18,  550,  as  we  shall  shortly  show,  we  can  also  see: 
(a)  that,  immediately  after  the  appearance  of  the  Judicatum, 
some  of  those  at  Constantinople  opposed  the  Pope  so  violently 
that  he  was  obliged  to  excommunicate  them ;  (&)  that  two 
monks,  Lampridius  and  Felix  of  Africa,  came  to  Constantin- 
ople and  opposed  the  Judicatum  by  speech  and  by  writing ; 
(c)  that  the  Pope's  nephew  Eusticus  and  other  Roman  clergy 
joined  these  opponents,  and  circulated  detrimental  reports 
concerning  the  Pope  in  all  the  provinces ;  (d)  that  the  Pope 
gave  them  repeated  warnings  before  proceeding  to  extremities ; 
and  that  (e)  in  many  provinces  parties  arose  for  and  against 
the  Judicatum,  and  there  arose  between  them  bloody  frays 
even  in  the  churches. 

That  Rusticus  and  Sebastian  had,  at  a  very  early  period, 
occasioned  movements  in  the  province  of  Scythia,  we  see 
from  the  Pope's  letter  to  Bishop  Valentinian  of  Tomi,  dated 
March  18,  550.3  The  latter  had  given  the  Pope  intelli- 
gence respecting  the  rumours  circulated  in  his  province,  and 
the  disturbances  which  had  arisen,  and  Vigilius,  in  his  answer, 

1  On  this  Abbot  Felix,  cf.  Gamier,  Diss.  de  V.  Synodo,  in  Schulze's  edition 
of  the  works  of  Theodoret  of  Cyrus,  t.  v.  p.  562. 

2  This  brief  of  excommunication  is  in  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  351  sqq. ;  Hardouin, 
t.  iii.  p.  175  sqq. 

3  On  the  date  of  this  letter,  cf.  note  1,  in  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  362,  where,  however, 
instead  of  749,  we  must  read  549,  and  instead  of  530,  550.     Gamier,  I.e.  p.  563 
would  alter  the  date,  but  cf.  Balleriui,  I.e.  t.  iv.  p.  1026  sq. 


declares  that  it  is  entirely  untrue  that  he  had  censured  the 
persons  of  Theodoret  and  I  has,  or  generally  that  he  had  done 
wrong  to  any  of  those  bishops  who  had  subscribed  the  Council 
of  Chalcedon.  If  his  Judicatum  to  Mennas  were  read,  it  would 
be  shown  that  he  had  done  or  ordained  nothing  which  was 
contrary  to  the  faith  and  the  doctrine  of  the  four  venerable 
Councils  of  Nicaea,  Constantinople,  Ephesus,  and  Chalcedon, 
or  the  decrees  of  the  earlier  Popes.  The  originators  of  that 
scandal  which  arose  in  Scythia,  were  Kusticus  and  Sebastian, 
whom  he  had  excommunicated  some  time  ago,  and  who  would 
soon,  unless  they  amended,  receive  the  canonical  punishment 
(deposition  from  office).1  He  requested  Valentinian  to  warn 
all  connected  with  him  against  these  promoters  of  disturb- 
ances ;  and  if  any  had  doubts,  they  might  come  personally  to 
the  Pope.2 

Archbishop  Aurelian  of  Aries,  as  well  as  Valentinian  of 
Tomi,  had  written  to  the  Pope  in  the  year  549.3  Occasion 
for  this  also  was  given  by  the  accusation,  circulated  in  Gaul, 
that  the  Pope  had  done  something  which  contradicted  the 
decrees  of  his  predecessors,  and  the  creed  of  the  four 
(Ecumenical  Councils.  Vigilius  quieted  him  on  this  subject, 
and  appointed  him  to  be  his  vicar  in  Gaul,4  to  warn  all  the 
other  bishops  against  false  anoj.  lying  rumours.  He  adds  that 
he  will  explain  to  Aurelian,  as  far  as  possible,  all  that  has 
happened,  through  Anastasius,  whom  Aurelian  had  sent  with 
his  letter  to  Constantinople ;  and  further,  that  when  the 
Emperor  allows  him  to  return  to  Eome,  he  will  send  from 
thence  a  special  envoy  to  Aries.  Meanwhile  let  Aurelian 
unceasingly  petition  Childebert,  king  of  the  Franks,  that  he 
would  apply  to  the  King  of  the  Goths  (Totilas),  who  had 

1  Pagi,  ad  ann.  550,  n.  5,  properly  infers  from  this  that  the  Pope  had  pro- 
nounced the  excommunication  of  Rusticus  and  the  others  a  considerable  time 
before  March  1 8,  550  (the  date  of  the  present  letter),  but  the  deposition  later. 
Gamier,  on  the  contrary  (I.e.  p.  562),  places  the  latter  in  the  year  549. 

2  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  359  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  181. 

3  Pridie  Idus  Julias  the  Pope  received  Aurelian's  letter,  and  despatched  his 
answer,  April  29,  550.     Accordingly  we  must  understand  that  the  Idus  Julias 
belonged  to  549.     Gamier  (I.e.  p.  563)  would  alter  the  date. 

4  Two  earlier  letters  of  Vigilius,  in  which  he  appoints  Aurelian,  after  the 
death  of  Auxanius,  the  previous  bishop  of  Aries,  to  be  his  vicar  in  Gaul,  are 
found  in  Mansi,  t  ix.  p.  46  sq. 


taken   the   city  of  Eome,  on   behalf  of  the  Eoman  Church 
and  its  rights.1 

Still  more  violent  than  in  Gaul  and  Scythia  was  the 
opposition  to  the  Judicatum  in  Illyria,  Dalmatia,  and  Africa. 
That  the  bishops  of  Dalmatia  did  not  receive  the  Judicatum, 
we  learn  from  the  letter  of  the  Italian  clergy,2  already  fre- 
quently quoted.  The  Illyrian  bishops,  however,  according  to 
the  account  given  by  Bishop  Victor  of  Tununum,  assembled  in 
a  Synod  in  the  year  549,  according  to  his  corrected  chronology, 
already  noted.  Where  this  Synod  was  held  is  not  known ; 
but  the  bishops  declared  themselves  for  the  three  chapters, 
addressed  a  document  in  defence  of  them  to  the  Emperor,  and 
deposed  their  Metropolitan  Benenatus  from  Justiniana  I., 
because  he  defended  the  rejection  of  the  three  chapters.3 
The  Africans  went  still  further,  and  at  their  Synod,  A.D.  550, 
under  the  presidency  of  Eeparatus  of  Carthage,  formally 
excommunicated  Pope  Vigilius  on  account  of  the  Judicatum 
until  he  should  do  penance.  They  also  sent  memorials  in 
favour  of  the  three  chapters,  through  the  Magistrian  Olympius, 
to  the  Emperor.4  The  latter  found  the  matter  of  such  import- 
ance, that  he  addressed  rescripts  to  the  Illyrians  and  Africans, 
in  which  he  defended  the  anathema  on  the  three  chapters. 
They  are  lost ;  but  we  gain  information  respecting  them  in 
Isidore  of  Seville.5 

1  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  361  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  183  sqq.     From  a  letter  of 
the  Italian  clergy  to  the  Frankish  envoys  (Mansi,  I.e.  p.  155  ;  Hardouin,  I.e. 
p.  50,  cf.  below,  sec.  264),  we  learn  that  this  Anastasius  was  not  allowed  to 
return  to  his  home  for  more  than  two  years,  until  after  he  had  promised  to  per- 
suade the   Gallican   bishops  to  pronounce  anathema  on  the  three  chapters. 
These  Italian  clergy  maintain  that  the  Pope  (probably  later,  A.D.  551,  when  he 
would  no  longer  condemn  the  three  chapters)  wanted  to  forward  another  letter 
by  Anastasius  to  Bishop  Aurelian  of  Aries,  but  the  Emperor  would  not  allow  it, 
and  he  was  permitted  to  send  only  the  letter  from  which  we  have  made  extracts 
(which  the  Italian  clergy  characterised  in  general). 

2  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  153  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  47. 

3  Victor.  Tunun.,  ad  ann.  549,  in  Galland.  t.  xii.  p.  230.     The  Emperor 
Justinian  founded  on  the  site  of  a  village  at  Tauresium  iii  Dardania  Europcea  a 
splendid  city,  which  he  named  Justiniana  i.,  and  which  became  in  541  also  an 
ecclesiastical  metropolis ;  cf.  Noris,  I.e.  t.  i.  p.  599. 

4  Victor.  Tunun.,  ad  ann.  550,  I.e. 

5  Isidor.  Hispal.,  De  Scriptorilnts  ecclesiasiicis,  in  Fabricii  LibliotJicca  Eccles. 
pt.  ii.  p.  54. 


SEC.  261.   The  Judicatum  is  urithdraum,  and  a  great  Synod 


For  the  appeasing  of  the  disputes  which  had  arisen  over 
the  Judicatum,  the  Pope  and  Emperor,  about  the  year  550, 
agreed,  first,  to  withdraw  the  Judicatum,  and  further,  to  have 
the  question  of  the  three  chapters  decided  anew  by  a  great 
Synod.  The  Emperor  therefore  gave  leave  to  Vigilius  to 
withdraw  the  Judicatum,  and  it  was  decided  in  consultation 
between  the  two,  in  which  also  Mennas,  Dacius  of  Milan, 
and  many  Greek  and  Latin  bishops  took  part,  that,  before  the 
decision  of  the  Synod  which  was  to  be  called,  no  one  should 
be  allowed  to  undertake  anything  further  for  or  against  the 
three  chapters.  This  is  related  by  Vigilius  himself  in  the 
edict  against  Theodore  Ascidas.1  The  Italian  clergy,  how- 
ever, tell  us,  besides,  that  Vigilius  demanded  that  five  or  six 
bishops  should  be  summoned  from  each  province,  and  ex- 
plained, that  only  that  which  should  then  be  peacefully 
determined  in  common  should  prevail,  since  he,  for  his  own 
part,  would  do  nothing  whereby,  as  people  said,  the  credit  of 
the  Synod  of  Chalcedon  should  be  called  in  question.2  He 
thus  took  back,  formally  at  least,  his  Judicatum ;  but,  that 
he  might  not  give  it  up  materially,  nor  oppose  the  Emperor 
at  the  coming  Synod,  he  took  an  oath  to  him  in  writing,  on 
the  15th  of  August  550,  to  the  effect  that  he  would  be  of 
one  mind  with  the  Emperor,  and  labour  to  the  utmost  to 
have  the  three  chapters  anathematised ;  whilst,  on  the  other 
hand,  for  the  security  of  the  Pope,  this  oath  should  be  kept 
secret,  and  the  Emperor  should  promise  to  protect  him  in 
case  of  necessity.3 

SEC.   262.  Synod  at  Mopmestia,  A.D.  550. 
In    preparation     for    the    intended    great    Council,    the 

1  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  59  ;  Hardouiu,  t.  iii.  p.  8. 

2  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  153;  Harden  in,  I.e.  p.  47. 

8  This  oath  is  printed  in  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  363  ;  Hardouiu,  I.e.  p.  184.  The 
Ballerini  oppose  the  genuineness  of  the  document  in  question  (Noris,  Opp.  t.  iv. 
p.  1037  sqq.).  Cf.  Walch,  Kctzcrhist.  Bd.  viii.  S.  192  sq. 


Emperor  caused  a  kind  of  Synod  of  the  bishops  of  Cilicia  n. 
to  be  held  at  Mopsuestia,  in  order  to  ascertain  whether  the 
name  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  had  been  entered  on  the 
diptychs  there.  The  Acts  of  this  Synod  are  found  in  the 
minutes  of  the  fifth  session  of  the  fifth  (Ecumenical  Synod, 
at  which  they  were  read.1  The  first  document  referring  to 
this  assembly  is  the  letter  of  the  Emperor  Justinian,  dated 
May  23,  550  (not  May  13, as  Noris  gives  it),  to  Bishop  John 
of  Justinianopolis,2  metropolitan  of  Cilicia  n.,  to  the  effect 
that  he  would  come  to  Mopsuestia  to  meet  the  bishops 
belonging  to  his  Synod,  and  then  have  a  meeting  with  all  the 
aged  people  there,  clergy  and  laity,  in  order  to  learn  whether 
they  could  remember  the  time  at  which  the  name  of 
Theodore  had  been  struck  from  the  diptychs.  If  they  could 
not  do  this,  they  might  declare  that,  in  their  knowledge,  the 
name  of  Theodore  had  never  been  read  out  at  divine  service ; 
finally,  the  diptychs  were  to  be  exhibited  in  their  presence, 
and  in  the  presence  of  the  bishops,  in  order  to  see  who  had 
been  inscribed  in  them  instead  of  Theodore.  A  messenger 
with  intelligence  of  the  result  of  this  inquiry  should  be  sent 
to  the  Emperor,  and  another  to  the  Pope3. 

The  Emperor  sent  Bishop  Cosmas  of  Mopsuestia  infor- 
mation of  this  command  given  to  the  metropolitan,  with 
commissions  referring  to  it.  This  second  document  is  dated 
May  22,  550.  The  Acts  of  the  Synod  of  Mopsuestia  are 
appended  to  it,  the  Synod  being  held  June  17,  550,  in  the 
Secretarium  of  the  church  there,  under  the  presidency  of  the 
metropolitan  named,  and  in  presence  of  eight  other  bishops 
and  many  other  distinguished  men.  The  office  of  imperial 
commissioner  was  discharged  by  the  Comes  domesticorum, 
Marthanius.  The  holy  Gospels  were  placed  in  the  middle  of 
the  place  of  assembly,  and  first  of  all  the  command  of  the 
Emperor  was  read.  Thereupon  the  Defensor  of  the  Church 
of  Mopsuestia,  the  deacon  Eugenius,  presented  seventeen 

1  Mausi,  t.  ix.  pp.  274-289  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  pp.  123-134.  Cf.  Noris,  t.  i. 
p.  605  sqq. 

-  The  ancient  Auazarbus,  destroyed  by  an  earthquake,  but  rebuilt  by  the 
Emperor  Justinian,  had  recently  received  the  name  of  Justinianopolis. 

3  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  274  ;  Hardouin,  i.e.  p.  123. 

SYNOD  AT   MOPSUESTIA,  A.D.  550.  267 

aged  priests  and  deacons,  and  the  same  number  of  aged  lay- 
men of  distinction  (among  them  comites  and  pcdatini)  from 
Mopsuestia ;  and  the  Gustos  of  the  church  effects,  the  priest 
John,  brought  in  the  diptychs,  as  well  those  which  were 
then  used  in  the  church  as  two  older  which  had  formerly 
been  used.  These  diptychs  were  first  publicly  read,  then 
each  bishop  read  them  individually,  and  then  the  presbyter 
John  took  oath  that  he  knew  of  none  besides  or  older  than 
these.  In  the  same  way  the  aged  witnesses  were  required  to 
make  declarations  on  oath,  laying  their  hands  upon  the  book 
of  the  Gospels. 

The  first  and  oldest,  the  priest  Martyrius,  declared :  "  I 
am  now  eighty  years  old,  for  sixty  years  in  Orders,  and  do 
not  know  and  have  never  heard  that  Theodore's  name  was 
read  from  the  diptychs ; l  but  I  heard  that,  instead  of  his 
name,  that  of  S.  Cyril  of  Alexandria  had  been  inscribed,  and 
the  name  of  Cyril  does,  in  fact,  occur  in  the  present  diptychs, 
although  there  never  was  a  Bishop  Cyril  of  Mopsuestia.  The 
Theodore,  however,  whose  name  is  found  in  two  diptychs,  in 
the  place  before  the  last,  is  certainly  not  the  older  one,  but 
the  bishop  of  Mopsuestia  who  died  only  three  years  ago,  and 
who  was  a  native  of  Galatia."  The  like  was  deposed  by  all 
the  other  witnesses,  clergy  and  laymen ;  whereupon  the 
bishops,  in  somewhat  prolix  discourse,  brought  together  the 
results  of  these  testimonies  and  of  the  examination  of  the 
diptychs,  namely,  that  at  a  time  beyond  the  memory  of  any 
living  man,  the  Theodore  in  question  had  been  struck  from 
the  diptychs,  and  Cyril  of  Alexandria  inscribed  in  his  place. 
This  declaration  was  subscribed  by  all  the  bishops,  and  also  the 
two  documents  required  of  them  for  the  Emperor  and  Pope, 
in  which  they  communicated  the  principal  contents  of  the 
minutes  of  the  Synod.2 

1  Accordingly  the  name  of  Theodore  could  no  longer  have  stood  in  the 
diptychs  in  the  youth  of  the  martyr,  i.e.  about  A. D.  480. 

a  Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  275-289  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  pp.  124-134.  The  Libellus 
Synodicus  (Mansi,  I.e.  p.  150,  and  Hardouin,  t.  v.  p.  1534)  relates  that  the 
bishops  had  assembled  at  Mopsuestia,  and  had  asked  the  clergy  there  and  the 
aged  laity  whether  the  name  of  Theodore  had  ever  stood  in  the  diptychs  ;  that 
this  was  affirmed,  and  the  bishops  now  informed  Vigilius  of  it.  From  hence 
Gamier  infers  (I.e.  p.  551),  certainly  without  justification,  that  there  were  at 


SEC.  262B.   Tlie  African  Deputies. 

About  the  same  time  the  Emperor  summoned  the  bishops 
of  Illyricum  and  Africa  for  the  contemplated  great  Synod  at 
Constantinople.  The  Illyrians  refused  to  come.1  From 
Africa,  however,  appeared,  as  deputies  of  the  collective 
episcopate,  Eeparatus,  archbishop  of  Carthage;  Firmus, 
primate,  or  primes  sedis  Episcopus,  of  Numidia ;  and  Bishops 
Primasius  and  Verecundus,  from  the  province  of  Byzacene. 
Soon  Greek  bishops  endeavoured,  by  flatteries  and  threats,  to 
gain  them  over  to  subscribe  the  anathema  on  the  chapters. 
As  this  remained  without  result,  Reparatus  of  Carthage  was 
blamed,  as  being  the  cause  of  the  imperial  Magister  militum 
in  Africa,  Areobindus,  a  relative  of  the  Emperor,  being 
murdered  by  the  usurper  Guntarit  (Gontharis 2) ;  and  upon 
this  accusation  Reparatus  was  deprived  of  his  office  and 
property,  and  was  banished.  At  the  same  time,  by  imperial 
authority,  the  faithless  representative  of  the  deposed  bishop, 
Primasius  (who  is  not  to  be  confounded  with  the  bishop  of 
the  same  name  mentioned  above),  was  placed  on  the  throne 
of  Carthage,  in  an  uncanonical  manner,  during  the  lifetime 
of  Reparatus,  against  the  wishes  of  the  clergy  and  laity,  after 
he  had  condemned  the  three  chapters.  His  intrusion  was  not 
carried  through  without  effusion  of  blood. 

The  second  African  deputy,  the  Primate  Firmus  of 
Numidia,  allowed  himself  to  be  bribed  by  presents,  and 
subscribed  the  required  anathema,  but  died  on  the  return 

that  time  two  Synods  held  at  Mopsuestia :  the  one  called  by  the  Emperor,  in 
order  to  prove  that  Theodore's  name  had  been  struck  from  the  diptychs  ;  the 
other  ordered  by  the  Pope,  in  order  to  show  that  the  name  had  once  stood  in 
the  diptychs.  Cf.  on  the  other  side  the  Defensio  of  the  Ballerini,  in  their 
edition  of  the  works  of  Cardinal  Noris,  t.  iv.  p.  1024. 

1  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  153  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  47. 

-  Reparatus  was  innocent.  Gontharis,  Lieutenant-General  of  Areobindus, 
and  commander  in  Numidia,  had  rebelled  and  set  up  as  Regent  of  Africa. 
Areobindus  fled  with  his  family  into  a  monastery.  The  usurper,  however,  sent 
Bishop  Reparatus  to  Areobindus,  to  convey  to  him  a  sworn  promise  of  safety, 
and  to  invite  him  to  return  to  Carthage.  Reparatus  accomplished  the  com- 
mission bond  fide  ;  Areobindus  left  his  asylum,  and  was  received  at  his  table  by 
Gontharis,  but  was  afterwards  murdered.  Procop.,  De  Bella  Vandalico,  lib.  ii. 
cc.  25  and  26  in  the  Bonn  edition  of  the  Byzantines,  Pars  ii.  vol.  i.  pp. 
515-522  ;  Baronius,  ad  ann.  545,  n.  21;  Noris,  I.e.  t.  i.  p.  614. 


journey  to  the  sea  a  disgraceful  death.  His  colleague, 
Piimasius,  of  the  Byzacene  province,  was  at  first  steadfast, 
and  was  therefore  sent  into  a  monastery  ;  but  afterwards, 
when  Boethius,  the  primate  of  the  Byzacene  province,  had 
died,  he  agreed  to  sign  the  anathema  on  the  three  chapters,  in 
order  to  become  his  successor.  He  returned  to  Africa  and 
oppressed  and  plundered  the  bishops  of  the  opposite  party, 
until  at  last  the  merited  punishment  overtook  him,  and  he 
was  forced  to  give  up  all  his  unrighteous  possessions,  and 
died  a  miserable  death. 

Finally,  the  fourth  African  deputy,  Bishop  Verecundus,  on 
account  of  his  adhesion  to  the  three  chapters,  was  forced 
subsequently  to  flee  with  Pope  Vigilius  to  Chalcedon,  and 
take  refuge  in  the  Church  of  S.  Euphemia,  where  he  also 
died.  The  governor  of  Africa,  moreover,  sent  all  those 
bishops  whom  he  had  discovered  to  be  willing  to  receive  a 
bribe,  or  to  be  otherwise  perverted,  to  Constantinople,  in 
order  that  they  might  subscribe  the  condemnation  of  the 
three  chapters.1 

SEC.  263.  The  Second  Imperial  Edict  against  the  Three  Chapters. 

How  little  the  Emperor  and  his  party  really  wanted  a  new 
synodal  examination  of  the  whole  question  is  shown  not  only 
by  what  has  already  been  mentioned,  but  also  by  the  strange 
conduct  of  Theodore  Ascidas.  In  the  harshest  contradiction 
to  the  union  between  the  Pope  and  Emperor  already  men- 
tioned (sec.  261),  at  his  suggestion  a  document  was  read 
aloud  in  the  imperial  palace,  in  which  the  three  chapters 
were  anathematised,  and  to  which  the  subscriptions  of  several 
Greek  bishops  were  demanded.  Vigilius  remonstrated  on  the 
subject  with  him  and  his  friends,  and  they  asked  forgiveness 
with  specious  excuses.  In  spite  of  this,  Theodore  Ascidas 
circulated  that  document  still  more  widely,  irritated  the 
Emperor,  and  made  him  discontented  with  Vigilius,  and 
brought  it  about  that,  without  waiting  for  the  Synod,  edicts 

1  We  obtain  this  information  from  Victor.  Tunun.  I.e.  (Galland.  t  xii.  p. 
230),  and  from  the  letter  of  the  Italian  clergy  in  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  153  sq. ; 
Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  47. 


were  drawn  up,  containing  an  anathema  on  the  three  chapters. 
Vigilius  himself  tells  this ; l  and  the  new  edicts  in  question 
were  certainly  nothing  else,  in  several  places,  than  passages 
taken  from  the  complete  opoXoyia  7rt<rreo><?  'lovvrivtavov 
avTotcpdropos  Kara  rwv  rpiwv  /ce^aXauuv.  This  second  edict 
of  the  Emperor  against  the  three  chapters  was  drawn  up 
between  551  and  553,  probably  in  the  year  551,  was 
addressed  to  the  whole  of  Christendom,  and  is  still  extant.2 
Nothing  is  so  calculated,  the  Emperor  says,  to  propitiate  the 
gracious  God,  as  unity  in  the  faith ;  therefore  he  lays  down 
here  the  orthodox  confession.  Then  follows  a  kind  of  creed, 
in  which,  first,  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  principally  in 
opposition  to  Sabellius  and  Arius,  is  defined ;  but  much  more 
completely  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ  explained, 
in  opposition  to  the  Nestorians  and  Monophysites.  For 
example,  "  He  who  was  born  of  Mary  is  one  of  the  Holy 
Trinity,  according  to  His  Godhead  of  one  substance  with  the 
Father,  and  according  to  His  manhood  of  one  substance  with 
us,  capable  of  suffering  in  the  flesh,  but  incapable  of  suffering 
in  the  Godhead ;  and  no  other  than  the  Word  of  God  sub- 
jected Himself  to  sufferings  and  death.  It  is  not  one  Word 
(Logos)  that  worked  miracles,  and  another  Christ  who  suffered  ; 
but  one  and  the  same  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Word  of  God, 
became  flesh  and  man.  ...  If  we  say  that  Christ  is  composed 
(o-vvOeros)  of  two  natures,  Godhead  and  manhood,  we  bring 
no  confusion  (ffvyxvais)  into  this  unity  (evwa-is),  and  since 
we  recognise  in  each  of  the  two  natures  the  one  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  the  Word  of  God  made  man,  we  bring  no  separation 
nor  partition  nor  division  into  the  one  personality ;  but  we 
designate  the  natures  of  which  HE  is  composed,  and  this 
difference  is  not  denied  by  the  evcoa-is,  since  each  of  the  two 
natures  is  in  Him.  .  .  .  The  divine  nature  is  not  changed 
into  the  human,  nor  the  human  into  the  divine ;  rather, 
whilst  each  remains  within  its  bounds,  the  unity  of  personality 
(hypostatic  unity)  is  produced  by  the  Logos.  This  hypostatic 
unity  means  that  God  the  Word,  this  one  Hypostasis  (Person) 
of  the  Trinity,  united  Himself  not  with  a  previously  existing 

1  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  59  sq.  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  8  sq. 

2  Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  537-582  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  pp.  287-322. 


man,  but  in  the  body  of  the  blessed  Virgin,  HE  took  flesh 
for  Himself  of  her  own  person,  animated  by  the  reasonable 
and  rational  soul, — and  this  is  human  nature.  This  hypo- 
statical  union  of  the  Word  with  flesh  is  taught  also  by  the 
Apostle  Paul.  .  .  .  Hence  we  acknowledge  two  births  of  the 
Logos :  the  one  from  all  eternity  of  the  Father,  incorporeal ; 
the  other  in  the  last  days,  when  HE  became  flesh  and  man 
from  the  holy  God-bearer  (Gearo/cos).  .  .  .  He  is  Son  of 
God  by  nature,  we  are  so  by  grace ;  He  has,  for  our  sakes 
and  KO.T  oUovofiiav,  become  a  Son  of  Adam,  whilst  we  are 
by  nature  sons  of  Adam.  .  .  .  Even  after  the  Incarnation 
HE  is  one  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  the  only-begotten  Son  of 
God,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  composed  (o-vvderos)  of  both 
natures.  This  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Fathers.  .  .  .  Con- 
fessing this,  we  accept  also  the  expression  of  Cyril,  that  there 
is  pta  <f)v<Ti<;  TOV  Oeov  \6yov  aecapKw^evir],  .  .  .  for  as  often 
as  he  used  the  expression,  he  made  use  of  the  word  <j>v<ns  in 
the  sense  of  uTroo-Tao-t?,  for  in  the  books  in  which  this  mode 
of  speech  occurs,  he  speedily  uses  again,  instead  of  this,  the 
expressions  Xtxyo?  and  wo?  and  povoyevr)?  (as  identified  with 
pia  (f>vo~i<;  TOV  Oeov  \6yov  <r€o~apKa)fj,€vi>)),  and  thereby  indicates 
the  Person  or  Hypostasis,  and  not  the  Nature.  .  .  .  And  he  who 
confesses  Christ  as  God  and  as  man,  cannot  possibly  say  that 
there  is  only  one  nature  or  substance  (ovata)  in  Him.  That 
Cyril,  in  those  places,  really  took  <£wrt5  in  the  sense  of 
person,  is  shown  by  his  two  letters  to  Succensus  and  the 
thirteenth  chapter  of  his  Scholia.  .  .  .  Christ  is  thus  one 
Hypostasis  or  Person,  and  HE  has  in  Himself  the  perfection 
of  the  divine  and  uncreated  nature,  and  the  perfection  of  the 
human  and  created  nature." 

Further,  those  are  combated  who,  misusing  a  simile  of  the 
Fathers,  would  teach  only  one  nature  of  Christ.  Some  Fathers, 
particularly  Athanasius,  had  compared  the  union  of  the  God- 
head and  manhood  in  Christ  with  the  union  of  body  and  soul 
in  man.  Then  the  Monophysites  said :  As  body  and  soul 
constitute  only  one  human  nature,  so  the  Godhead  and  man- 
hood in  Christ  also  combine  into  one  nature.  On  the 
contrary,  the  imperial  edict  declares  :  "  If  there  were  only  one 
nature  in  Christ,  then  were  it  necessary  that  HE  should  be 


either  without  flesh,  and  only  of  one  substance  with  God,  or 
pure  man,  and  only  of  one  substance  with  us ;  or  that  the 
united  natures  should  constitute  one  new  nature  different  from 
both  ;  but  then  Christ  would  be  neither  God  nor  man,  and 
consubstantial  neither  with  God  nor  with  us.  Such  an  assump- 
tion, however,  were  impious." 

Another  objection  of  the  Monophysites  ran :  We  must 
not  assume  a  number  of  natures  in  Christ,  otherwise  we 
should  bring  in  a  division  in  Christ,  which  would  be  Nestorian. 
To  this  the  imperial  edict  replied  :  "  If  there  was  a  reference 
to  a  number  of  different  persons,  then  this  would  imply  a 
division  into  parts ;  but  if  we  speak  of  a  number  in  united 
objects,  the  division  is  made  only  in  thought,  as,  for  example, 
in  the  distinction  of  soul  and  body  in  the  unity  of  the  human 
person.  There,  too,  there  are  two  <£ucm?,  that  of  the  soul  and 
that  of  the  body,  but  the  man  is  not  thereby  himself  divided 
into  two.  So  in  Christ  we  have  to  recognise  a  number  of 
natures,  but  not  a  number  of  persons. 

This  is  proved  from  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  from  Cyril,  and 
from  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  and  then  the  difference  between  <j>v<ri<; 
(  =  ovtria)  and  vTroorao-t?  is  explained,  particularly  in  the  Holy 
Trinity.  "  We  may  therefore,"  the  Emperor  proceeds,  "  speak 
of  one  compound  Hypostasis  (Person)  of  God  the  Word  (Sia 
TOV  ewtre/Sw?  CITTOI  TIS  av  fiiav  vTroa-raa'iv  rov  0eov  \6yov 
ffvvBerov),  but  not  of  one  composed  of  one  nature.  The 
nature  is,  in  itself,  something  indefinite  (aopia-Tov),  it  must 
inhere  in  a  person.  When,  however,  they  say :  The  human 
nature  in  Christ  must  also  have  its  own  personality,  this  is 
as  much  as  to  say  that  the  Logos  has  become  united  with  a 
man  already  existing  by  himself;  but  two  persons  cannot 
become  one.  .  .  .  Whoever  says  that  before  the  union  there 
were  two  natures,  like  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  and  Nestorius, 
means  that  there  was  first  a  man  formed,  and  then  he  was 
united  with  the  Logos.  But  whoever  says  that  after  the 
union  we  must  no  longer  speak  of  two,  but  only  of  one  nature 
of  Christ,  introduces  a  o-vyxycrts  and  $>avra<rla,  like  Apol- 
linaris  and  Eutyches.  Before  the  Incarnation  there  were  not 
two  Lords,  and  after  the  Incarnation  there  is  not  merely 
one  nature."  The  four  (Ecumenical  Synods,  including  that  of 


Chalcedon,  are  then  adduced,  and  then  the  edict  goes  on : 
"  As  this  is  the  truth,  we  will  append  /ce</>a\ata,  which  con- 
tain in  brief  the  true  faith  and  the  condemnation  of  heretics." 
The  principal  contents  of  these  are  as  follows : — 

1.  Whoever  does  not  confess  the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit 
as  one  Godhead  or  nature,  to  be  worshipped  in  three  hypos- 
tases  or  persons,  let  him  be  anathema. 

2.  Whoever  does  not  confess    that   the  eternal    Son  of 
God  was  made  man,  and  so  had  two  births,  an  eternal  and  a 
temporal,  let  him  be  anathema. 

3.  Whoever    says    that    the    wonder-working    Logos    is 
another  than  the  suffering  Christ,  and  that  the  Logos  united 
Himself  with  one  born  of  a  woman,  and  is  not  one  Lord,  etc., 
let  him  be  anathema. 

4.  Whoever  does  not  confess   an   hypostatical   union  of 
the   Logos    with    the   flesh,   piav  avrov  rrjv  vTrocrraciv    crvv- 
Oerov,  but,  like  Nestorius,  merely  a  union  of  the  Godhead  and 
manhood,  tcara  ^dpiv,  or,  as  the  heretic  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia 
says,  Kara  evSotciav,  let  him  be  anathema. 

5.  Whoever  does  not  name  Mary  the  Godbearer  in  the 
full  sense,  let  him  be  anathema. 

6.  Whoever  does  not  confess   that   the  crucified  Christ 
is  true  God  and  One  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  let  him  be  anathema. 

7.  Whoever  accepts  two  natures  but  not  one  Lord,  but 
allows  a  Staipecrt?  ava  fiepos,  as  if  each  nature  were  a  proper 
hypostasis,  like  Theodore  and  Nestorius,  let  him  be  anathema. 

8.  Whoever,  speaking  of  two  natures  in  Christ,  assumes 
not   merely   a  Stafopa  rfj  dewpia,  but  a  numerical  division 
into  parts  (Siatpecriv  ava  pepo?),  let  him  be  anathema. 

9.  Whoever,   speaking   of   a   put    0ucrt?  rov  0eov  \6yov 
aecrapKoifjievrj,  does  not  understand  this  so  that  of  the  divine 
and  human  natures  there  has  come  one  Christ,  but  that  God- 
head and  manhood  coalesced  into  one  nature,  like  Apollinaris 
and  Eutyches,  let  him  be  anathema. 

10.  The  Catholic  Church  anathematises  both  those  who 
separate    and    those  who  mix  (Siaipovvra?  icai  o-iry^eovras). 
Whoever  does  not  anathematise  Arius,  Eunomius,  Macedonius, 
Apollinaris,  Nestorius,  and  Eutyches,  and  all  who  teach  as 
they  do,  let  him  be  anathema. 

iv.  1 8 


11.  Whoever  defends  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  who  says : 
(a)  That  God  the  Word   is  one,  and  another  is  the  Christ 
tormented  by  sufferings  of  the  soul  and  eViflu/Awj?  TT}<?  o-a/o/co?, 
Who  grew  in  virtue,  was  baptized  in  the  Name  of  the  Father, 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  through  baptism  received  the 
grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  Sonship,  and  is  reverenced  as 
the  image  of  God  the  Word,  like  the  image  of  an  Emperor, 
and  after  the  resurrection  became  unchangeable  in  disposition 
and  quite  sinless ;  (6)  who  (Theodore)  further  says :  The  union 
of  God  the  Word  with  Christ  is  of  the  same  kind,  according  to 
the  Apostle  Paul  (Eph.  v.  31),  as  that  between  man  and  wife, 
the  two  become  one  flesh ;  (c)  who,  besides  countless  other 
blasphemies,  dared   also  to  say :  When  the  Lord,  after   the 
resurrection,   breathed   upon   the   disciples  with  the  words : 
"Eeceive  the  Holy  Ghost"  (S.  John  xv.  28),  He  had  given 
them  not  the  Holy  Ghost  Himself,  but  breathed  upon  them 
°"%7?AtaTt  povov  (only  to   point  to  the  Holy  Ghost) ;  (d)  he 
said  further:  The  words  which  Thomas,  after  feeling  Him, 
spoke :  "  My  Lord  and  my  God"  (S.  John  xx.  28),  had  refer- 
ence not  to  Christ,  but  to  God  who  raised  Christ  up ;  (e)  and, 
what  is  worse,  in  his  commentary  on  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
Theodore  compares  Christ  with  Plato,  Manichaeus,  Epicurus, 
and  Marcion,  and  says  that,  as  each  of  these  invented  his 
own  doctrine,  and  thus  gave   to  his   disciples  the  name  of 
Platonists,  Manichseans,  etc.,  in  the  same  way  Christians  were 
named  after  Christ,  who  invented  a  new  doctrine.     Whoever 
defends  Theodore  thus  blaspheming,  and  does  not  anathematise 
him  and  his  adherents,  let  him  be  anathema. 

12.  Whoever     defends     those    writings    of     Theodoret, 
which  he  composed  in  opposition  to  the  right  faith,  against 
the   Synod    of   Ephesus,  and  against   Cyril  and  his   twelve 
anathematisms,  and  in  which  Theodoret  teaches  and  maintains 
only  a  o-^ert/c?)  ez/&><u<?  of  the  Word  with  a  man,  saying  that 
Thomas  had  touched  the  Eisen  One,  but  adored  Him   who 
raised  Him  up ;  and  in  which  he  calls  the  teachers  of  the 
Church  impious  because  they  maintain  an  hypostatic  union, 
and  finally  refuses  to  call  the  Virgin  Mary  the  Godbearer, — 
whoever  defends   these  writings  of   Theodore,  and   does  not 
rather   anathematise   them,  let  him  be  anathema.     For,  on 


account  of  these  blasphemies,  he  was  deposed  from  his 
bishopric,  and  was  subsequently  compelled  by  the  holy 
Synod  of  Chalcedon  to  maintain  the  opposite  of  these  writ- 
ings of  his,  and  to  confess  the  true  faith. 

13.  Whoever  defends  the  impious  letter  which  Ibas  is 
said  to  have  written  to  the  Persian  heretic  Maris,  in  which 
the  Incarnation  of  the  Logos  is  denied,  and  it  is  maintained 
that  not  God  the  Word,  but  a  mere  man,  named  Temple,  was 
born  of  Mary ;  in  which,  moreover,  the  first  Synod  of  Ephesus 
is  reviled,  as  though  it  had  condemned  Nestorius  without 
examination  and  judgment ;  in  which,  finally,  S.  Cyril  is  called 
a  heretic,  and  his  twelve  propositions  designated  as  impious, — 
whoever  defends  this  impious  letter,  and  in  whole  or  in  part 
declares  it  to  be  right,  and  does  not  anathematise  it,  let  him 
be  anathema. 

The  edict  then  proceeds  thus :  "  The  adherents  of 
Theodore  and  Nestorius  maintain  that  this  letter  was  accepted 
by  the  holy  Council  of  Chalcedon.  They  thus  do  injustice  to 
the  holy  Synod,  and  endeavour  thereby  to  protect  Theodore, 
Nestorius,  and  the  impious  letter  from  anathema,  the  letter 
which  Ibas,  when  often  questioned  on  the  subject,  never 
ventured  to  acknowledge  as  his.  Thus,  e.g.,  Ibas  at  Tyre 
(more  correctly,  at  Berytus,  see  sees.  196  and  169)  declared, 
that,  since  the  union  of  the  Antiochenes  with  Cyril,  he  had 
never  written  anything  against  the  latter,  whilst,  in  fact,  the 
letter  to  Maris  is  plainly  composed  after  that  union,  and  is 
full  of  insults  against  Cyril.  Ibas  thus  denied  the  author- 
ship. His  judges  (at  Tyre  and  Berytus)  therefore  demanded 
that  he  should  take  action  against  that  letter  (i.e.  anathe- 
matise Nestorius,  etc.) ;  and,  as  he  did  not  comply,  he  was 
deposed,  and  Nonnus  raised  to  his  place.1  When  Ibas  was 
subsequently  again  accused  at  Chalcedon,  he  did  not  venture 
to  acknowledge  that  letter,  but,  immediately  after  its  being 
read,  said  that  he  was  far  from  that  which  was  imputed  2  to 

1  We  have  already  seen  (sec.  196)  that  Ibas  was  declared  innocent  at  Tyre. 
But  he  was  deposed  at  the  Robber-Synod.     On  Nonnus,  see  sec.  196. 

2  The  Emperor  concludes  from  this  that  Ibas  did  not  acknowledge  the  letter 
as  his  ;  but  he  certainly  meant  only  to  declare  the  other  accusations  as  false. 
The  passage  is  in  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  250 ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  531. 


him  as  an  offence ;  but  the  Synod,  not  satisfied  with  this 
denial  of  the  letter,  compelled  him  to  do  the  reverse  of  that 
which  was  contained  in  the  letter,  namely,  confess  the  true 
faith,  accept  the  Synod  of  Ephesus,  agree  with  S.  Cyril,  and 
anathematise  Nestorius.  It  was  therefore  impossible  that 
the  Synod  of  Chalcedon  should  have  approved  of  that  letter. 
Even  when  in  this  letter  mention  is  made  of  two  natures  and 
one  Dynamis,  one  Prosopon,  even  here  there  is  a  mixture  of 
the  impiety  of  the  author.  Here,  as  in  other  writings,  he 
regards  the  natures  as  hypostatised,  but  the  ev  trpoawirov  he 
refers  to  the  unity  of  dignity  and  honour.  That  his  opinions 
generally  are  heretical,  he  shows  at  the  end  of  the  letter, 
where  he  says :  We  must  thus  believe  in  the  Temple,  and  in 
Him  Who  dwells  in  the  Temple.  .  .  .  Like  Him,  Nestorius 
also  united  with  expressions  of  orthodox  sound  an  heretical 
meaning.  .  .  .  We,  however,  in  all  ways  following  the 
doctrine  of  the  Fathers,  have  set  forth  as  well  the  union  of  the 
two  natures,  of  which  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  one  of  the  Trinity, 
the  incarnate  Word  of  G-od,  is  composed,  as  the  difference 
(Bia(f>opa)  of  these  natures,  which  is  not  removed  by  that  union. 
"  That  would  suffice,  but  the  opponents  also  maintain  that 
the  letter  of  Ibas  itself  should  not  be  rejected,  because  it  is 
found  in  some  copies  of  the  Acts  of  Chalcedon.  This  objec- 
tion is  invalid,  for  we  also  find  in  the  Acts  of  the  Council 
passages  from  Nestorius  and  others.  Besides,  this  letter  is 
not  found  in  the  authentic  Acts  of  Chalcedon ; l  and  besides, 
anything  brought  forward  by  this  or  that  member  of  a  Synod 
has  no  force,  but  only  that  which  is  decreed  by  the  assembly.2 
Whilst,  further,  some  rejected  the  writings  of  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia  as  impious,  but  would  not  anathematise  his 
person,  this  is  contrary  to  the  word  of  Holy  Scripture,  which 
says :  '  For  the  ungodly  and  his  ungodliness  are  both  alike 
hateful  unto  God'  (Wisd.  xiv.  9).  When,  however,  they 
say  that  Theodore  should  not  be  anathematised  after  his 
death,  they  must  know,  that  a  heretic  who  persists  in  error 
until  his  end,  is  rightly  punished  in  this  manner  for  ever, 

1  It  is  found  complete  in  the  Acts  we  now  possess.     See  sec.  196. 

2  An  allusion  to  some  utterances  let  fall  at  Chalcedon  in  favour  of  the  letter. 
See  sees.  196  and  258. 


and  even  after  his  death,  as  it  happened  with  Valentinus, 
Basilides,  and  others.  .  .  .  But  that  Theodoret  was  anathe- 
matised even  in  his  lifetime,  is  shown  distinctly  by  the 
letter  of  Ibas  (sec.  196).  They  say  further,  that  he  should 
not  be  anathematised,  because  he  died  in  Church  communion. 
But  only  those  die  properly  in  Church  communion  who  hold 
fast  the  common  faith  of  the  Church  until  the  end ;  and  the 
Mopsuestians  themselves,  as  the  Synod  there  (recently) 
showed,  had  long  ago  struck  Theodore  from  the  diptychs. 
Even  Judas  had  communicated  with  the  apostles,  notwith- 
standing which  the  apostles  rejected  him  after  his  death,  and 
elected  another  in  his  place.  .  .  . 

"  When  they  further  adduce,  in  favour  of  Theodore,  that 
Cyril  had  once  commended  him,  this  by  itself  proves  nothing, 
for  there  are  other  heretics,  who,  before  they  were  properly 
known,  had  been  commended  by  holy  Fathers,  e.g.  Eutyches 
by  Leo,  and  besides,  Cyril  had,  in  many  other  places, 
expressed  the  strongest  condemnation  of  Theodore.  The 
allegation  was  false  that  Chrysostom  and  Gregory  of  Nazi- 
anzus  had  written  letters  full  of  the  praise  of  Theodore. 
Gregory's  letter  referred,  not  to  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  but 
to  Theodore  of  Tyana  ;  and  the  letter  of  Chrysostom  is  not  full 
of  praise,  but  full  of  blame,  because  Theodore  had  left  the 
monastic  life.  If,  then,  John  of  Antioch  and  an  Oriental 
Synod  commended  Theodore,  these  men  had  also  (at  Ephesus) 
condemned  Cyril  and  defended  Nestorius.  Finally,  we  must 
refer  to  S.  Augustine.  When,  after  the  death  of  Cecilian,  it 
was  maintained  that  he  had  done  something  contrary  to 
ecclesiastical  order,  and  some  (the  Donatists)  had  separated 
themselves  from  the  Church  on  that  account,  Augustine 
wrote  to  Boniface  (Epist.  185,  n.  4),  'If  that  were  true 
which  was  charged  against  Cecilian,  I  should  anathematise 
him  even  after  his  death.'  Moreover,  a  canon  of  the  African 
Synod  requires  that  bishops  who  bequeath  their  property  to 
a  heretic,  shall  be  anathematised  even  after  their  death  (see 
sec.  84,  c.  15).  Further,  Dioscums  was  anathematised  by 
the  Church  in  Old  Koine  after  his  death,  although  he  had 
not  offended  against  the  faith,1  but  on  account  of  a  violation 
1  Not  Dioscurus  of  Alexandria,  but  the  antipope  of  that  name,  A.D.  530. 


of  ecclesiastical  order.  .  .  .  Whoever,  after  this  true  con- 
fession and  this  condemnation  of  heretics,  .  .  .  separates 
himself  from  the  Church,  as  though  our  piety  consisted  only 
in  names  and  expressions,  has  to  give  account,  for  himself 
and  for  those  led  astray  by  him,  on  the  day  of  judgment,  to 
the  great  God  and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Amen." 

SEC.  264.  Protest,  Persecution,  and  two  Fl'ights  of  tlu  Pope. 

After  issuing  this  imperial  edict,  a  great  conference  was 
held  in  the  residence  of  the  Pope,  the  Placidia  Palace. 
Greek  and  Latin  bishops  of  different  neighbourhoods,  and  the 
priests,  deacons,  and  clerics  of  Constantinople,  were  present. 
Even  Theodore  Ascidas  was  present.1  Both  Vigilius  and 
Dacius  of  Milan  warned  them  against  receiving  the  new 
imperial  edict ;  and  the  former,  in  particular,  said  :  "  Beseech 
the  pious  Emperor  to  withdraw  the  edicts  which  he  has  had 
drawn  up,  and  await  the  (projected)  ecumenical  decree  on 
the  matter  in  question,  until  the  Latin  bishops,  who  have 
taken  offence  (at  the  condemnation  of  the  three  chapters), 
shall  be  either  personally  present  at  a  Synod,  or  send  their 
votes  in  writing.  If  he  should  not  listen  to  your  petitions, 
then  you  ought  to  give  your  assent  to  nothing  which  tends 
to  a  rending  of  the  Church.  If,  however,  you  should  do  so, 
which  I  do  not  believe,  you  must  know  that,  from  that  day, 
you  are  excommunicated  from  the  apostolic  see  of  Peter." 2 
In  a  similar  sense  spoke  Bishop  Dacius  of  Milan  :  "  I  and  a 
part  of  those  bishops  in  whose  neighbourhood  my  church  lies, 
namely,  from  Gaul,  Burgundy,  Spain,  Liguria,  Emilia,  and 
Venetia,  testify  that  whoever  assents  to  those  edicts,  loses  the 
Church  communion  of  the  bishops  of  the  forenamed  provinces, 
because  I  am  convinced  that  those  edicts  infringe  the  sacred 
Synod  of  Chalcedon  and  the  Catholic  faith."  3 

1  So  relates  Vigilius  in  his  Damnatio  Theodori  (Ascidas),  in  Mansi,  t.  ix. 
p.  60  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  9. 

2  So  relates  Vigilius  in  his  Encyclica,  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  50  sq. ;  Hardouin, 
t.  iii.  p.  3. 

3  This  speech  of  Dacius  is  preserved  in  the  letter  which  the  Italian  clergy 
addressed  to  the   Frankish   envoys  who   were  going  to  Constantinople.     In 
Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  154  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  49. 


Vigilius  writes  that  not  only  was  the  edict  not  withdrawn, 
but  that,  on  the  very  same  day,  something  more  vexatious 
was  done,  in  opposition  to  all  ecclesiastical  rules,  and  with 
infringement  of  the  apostolic  see.1  What  he  means  by  this 
we  learn  from  his  Damnatio  Theodori  (I.e.),  namely,  that 
Ascidas,  with  the  other  bishops  whom  he  drew  after  him,  in 
opposition  to  the  express  papal  command,  went  into  the 
church  in  which  the  edict  was  published,  there  celebrated  the 
Missarum  solennia,  by  their  arbitrary  authority  struck  from 
the  diptychs  Bishop  Zoilus  of  Alexandria  (certainly  in 
partnership  with  Mennas)  because  he  would  not  condemn 
the  three  chapters,2  and  declared  a  certain  Apollinaris  as 
bishop  of  Alexandria.  The  Pope,  therefore,  excommunicated 
him  in  the  middle  of  July  5 5 1.3  The  Emperor  became  now 
so  embittered  against  Vigilius  and  Dacius,  that  they,  fearing 
for  liberty  and  life,  fled  (in  August  551)  into  the  Basilica  of 
S.  Peter  at  Constantinople,  named  in  Ormisda,  when  the 
Pope,  August  14,  551,  confirmed  in  his  writing  his  previous 
declaration,4  and  on  the  17th  of  this  month  pronounced  the 
deposition  of  Ascidas,  who  had  been  excommunicated  thirty 
days  before,  and  a  sentence  of  excommunication  on  his 
adherents,  especially  Mennas,  ex  persona  et  auctoritate  beati 
Petri  apostoli,  as  he  says,  and  in  communion  with  the 
Western  bishops  who  were  staying  with  him  (likewise  in  the 
Basilica  of  S.  Peter),  namely,  Dacius  of  Milan,  John  of 
Marsicus,  Zacchaeus  of  Squilaci,  Valentinus  of  Silva  Candida, 
Florentius  of  Matelica,  Julian  of  Siani,  Eomulus  of 
Numentus  or  Numana,  Dominions  of  Calliopoli,  Stephen 
of  Eimini,  Paschasius  of  Aletro,  Jordan  of  Cortona, 
Primasius  of  Adrumetum,  and  Verecundus  of  Juncee.6 
The  last  two  we  have  already  met  (sec.  262s)  as  depu- 

1  In  the  Encyclica,  in  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  51  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  3. 

2  Victor.  Ttinun.  ad  ann.  551,  in  Galland.  t.  xii.  p.  230. 

3  This  date  is  clear,  since  Vigilius  in  his  Damnatio  Theodori  says,  on  the 
1 7th  of  August,  that  he  had  "excommunicated  Theodori  forty  days  before." 
Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  60  sq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  9  sq. 

4  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  51  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  3. 

5  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  60  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  9  ;    Noris,  I.e.  t.  i.  p.  622  sqq. 
Punkes  shows  (Papst   Vigilius,   etc.    S.  91)   that  in  Text   B,   Verecundus  is 
wrongly  designated  as  Nicensis. 


ties  of  the  African  episcopate ;  all  the  others  were  from 

Vigilius  did  not  immediately  publish  this  Damnatio,  but 
gave  the  document  in  question,  as  he  informs  us,  in  charge 
to  a  Christian  person,  in  order  to  give  the  Emperor,  as  well  as 
the  bishops  excommunicated,  time  to  alter  their  mind.  Should 
these,  however,  not  alter  their  mind,  or  should  violence  be  done 
to  the  Pope,  or  evil  treatment  be  inflicted,  or  he  should  die, 
the  edict  was  to  be  published  at  the  most  important  places, 
and  everyone  should  receive  information  on  the  subject.1 

Vigilius  was  a  short  time,  perhaps  scarcely  a  day,  in  the 
Basilica  of  S.  Peter,  when  the  Praetor  and  a  considerable 
number  of  soldiers  with  naked  swords  appeared  in  the 
church,  in  order  to  bring  him  out  by  force.  He  clung  to 
the  pillars  of  the  altar ;  the  Prsetor,  however,  after  he  had 
made  them  drag  out  the  deacons  and  other  clergy  of  the 
Pope  by  the  hair,  gave  command  that  the  Pope  himself 
should  be  seized  by  the  feet,  the  head,  and  the  beard,  and 
dragged  out.  As  Vigilius  did  not  let  go  the  pillars  of  the 
altar,  it  fell  over,  and  some  of  its  pillars  were  broken.  In 
fact,  the  altar  table  would  have  fallen  upon  Vigilius  and 
struck  him  dead,  had  not  some  clerics  held  it  fast  with 
their  hands.  The  people  were  so  angered  by  this  sight,  that 
they  broke  out  into  loud  murmurs,  and  even  several  of  the 
soldiers  showed  such  unwillingness  that  the  Praetor  thought 
it  well  to  draw  off.2 

Somewhat  gentler  measures  were  now  adopted,  and  the 
Emperor  sent  a  number  of  high  officers  of  State,  the 
celebrated  Belisarius  and  three  others,  ex-consuls,  Cethegus, 
Peter,  and  Justin,  to  the  Pope,  with  the  offer  of  an  oath  that 
no  wrong  should  happen  to  him  if  he  returned  to  his  former 
residence.  If,  however,  he  would  not  receive  this  oath,  force 
would  have  to  be  used.  Vigilius  now  drew  up  a  sketch  of 
the  oath  which  the  Emperor  was  expected  to  furnish  in 
writing  ;  but  the  Emperor  would  not  accept  the  sketch,  and 
ordered  that  the  commissioners  already  named  should  take 

1  Vigilii  Encyclica,  in  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  51  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  4. 

2  This  is  told  by  Vigilius  and  the  Italian  clergy.     Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  52,  154  ; 
Hardouin,  I.e.  pp.  4,  49. 


the  oath.  This  was  done.  They  laid  the  document  con- 
taining the  oath  upon  the  altar,  and  took  a  corporal  oath 
upon  the  cross,  in  which  a  portion  of  the  sacred  cross  of 
Christ  was  enclosed,  and  upon  the  keys  of  S.  Peter ;  where- 
upon Vigilius,  in  accordance  with  the  wish  of  the  Emperor, 
returned  to  the  Placidia  Palace.  With  him  also  Dacius  and 
all  his  other  companions  left  the  asylum  in  the  Basilica  of 
S.  Peter.1 

The  assurances  given  to  the  Pope  were,  however,  so  badly 
fulfilled,  that  he  repeatedly  reminded  those  imperial  com- 
missioners, in  writing,  of  their  oath,  and  requested  them  to 
represent  to  the  Emperor  that  he  had  been  promised 
protection  from  all  molestations.  Yet  the  persecution  became 
daily  more  wanton ; 2  servants  and  clerics  of  the  Pope  and 
his  friends  were  bribed  to  inflict  insults  upon  them ;  faithful 
servants,  on  the  contrary,  were  torn  from  them ;  and 
emissaries  were  sent  to  Italy,  in  order  to  circulate  falsehoods 
against  the  Pope  and  Dacius,  to  stir  up  the  people  against 
them,  and  to  mislead  them  to  the  election  of  other  bishops. 
They  went  so  far  as  to  get  a  notary  to  imitate  the  hand- 
writing of  the  Pope,  and  to  prepare,  in  his  name,  false  letters, 
which  a  certain  Stephen  then  brought  into  Italy,  in  order  to 
inflame  the  public  mind  against  Vigilius.  The  Italian  clergy, 
who  relate  this,3  add  that  the  intention  was  not  attained ;  yet 
they  themselves  seem  to  have  apprehended  from  all  this  a 
very  unfavourable  effect  upon  public  sentiment,  on  which 
account  they  now,  perhaps,  assembled  in  a  Council,  conveyed 
to  the  envoys  then  sent  by  the  Frankish  King  Theodobald  to 
Constantinople,  the  document  to  which  we  have  so  often 
referred,  and  which  we  first  brought  to  light,  in  which  the 
course  of  the  controversy  on  the  three  chapters  up  to  this 
time  is  described.4 

1  Mansi, ;  Hardouin,  -  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  52;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  5. 

3  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  154  sq. ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  49  sq. 

8  In  the  autumn  of  551,  Procopius,  De  Bella  Gothico,  iv.  24,  relates  that 
the  Emperor  Justinian,  after  the  death  of  the  Austrasian  King  Theodobert 
(A.D.  548),  sent  to  his  son  and  successor  Theodobald  his  Minister  of  State,  to 
move  him  to  an  alliance  against  the  Goths,  etc.  Upon  this  Theodobald  sent 
the  distinguished  Frank,  Leudard,  with  three  other  men  of  distinction,  to 
Constantinople.  Cf.  Walch,  Ketzerhist.  Bd.  viii.  S.  210. 


At  the  same  time,  the  petition  was  inserted  in  the 
document  to  the  Prankish  envoys  that  they  would  convey 
this  intelligence  to  their  own  country  as  speedily  as  possible, 
so  that  their  countrymen  might  not  be  deceived  either  by 
the  emissaries  ordered  there,  or  by  that  Anastasius,  who  had 
been  sent  more  than  two  years  ago  by  Bishop  Aurelian  of 
Aries  to  Constantinople,  to  the  Pope,  but  had  been  kept 
there  so  long,  until  he  promised  that  he  would  persuade  the 
Gallican  bishops  to  pronounce  an  anathema  on  the  three 
chapters.  The  envoys  were  also  requested  to  ask  the 
Gallican  bishops  to  write  letters  to  Vigilius  and  Dacius, 
to  comfort  them,  and  to  encourage  them  to  make  opposition 
to  all  innovations.  In  the  third  place,  during  their  stay  in 
Constantinople,  they  should  intercede  for  Dacius,  so  that  he 
might,  after  an  absence  of  fifteen  or  sixteen  years,  be  allowed 
to  return  again  to  his  diocese,  particularly  as  many  sees,  for 
which  new  bishops  had  to  be  ordained,  had  for  years  been 
vacant,  so  that  many  persons  had  died  without  baptism.1 
Moreover,  they  should  ask  Dacius  personally  why  he  had  not 
long  ago  returned  to  his  church.  Finally,  they  must  take 
care  not  to  be  caught  by  the  opponents,  even  if  these  should 
declare  that  they  were  thoroughly  orthodox  and  full  of 
respect  for  the  Council  of  Chalcedon.  The  Italian  clergy 
add  that  they  had  received  all  this  intelligence  from  quite 
trustworthy  people  in  Constantinople,  also  that  in  Africa  acts 
of  violence  were  committed  against  clergymen,  and  that  all 
Komans  were  forbidden  to  visit  the  Pope.2 

In  the  meantime  Vigilius  found  out,  more  and  more, 
that  the  Emperor  was  thoroughly  indisposed  to  keep  that 
oath.  All  ways  of  approach  to  the  dwelling  of  the  Pope  were 
watched,  and  the  residence  itself  surrounded  by  so  many 
suspicious  people,  that  Vigilius  escaped  two  days  before 
Christmas,  551,  full  of  anxiety,  and  under  the  greatest 
dangers,  with  his  friends  to  Chalcedon,  and  sought  refuge  in 
the  Church  of  S.  Euphemia  (a  celebrated  asylum)  there,  in 

1  From  the  special  interest  on  behalf  of  Dacius,  it  is  concluded  that  the 
Italian  clergy  who  wrote  this  letter  may  have  been  from  Milan  ;  cf.  Walch, 
Kctzerhist.  Bd.  viii.  S,  210,  Anm.  2. 

2  Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  151-156  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  pp.  47-50. 


which  the  fourth  (Ecumenical  Synod  was  held.  From  hence 
he  published,  in  January  552,  the  decree  against  Ascidas  and 
Mennas,  which  had  been  drawn  up  nearly  six  months  before ; 
but  here  also  he  was  persecuted,  even  beaten,  two  of  his 
deacons,  Pelagius  and  Tullianus,  torn  from  the  church,  various 
sacerdotes  (probably  bishops  in  the  train  of  the  Pope)  arrested.1 
Vigilius  himself  was  here  seized  by  a  violent  sickness,2  and 
his  companion,  Bishop  Verecundus  of  Africa,  died  in  the 
hospital  of  the  Church  of  S.  Euphemia  (sec.  262s). 

SEC.  265.  New  Negotiations  for  gaining  over  Pope  Vigilius. 

Towards  the  end  of  January  552,  the  Emperor  again 
entered  into  communications  with  the  Pope,  and,  on  the  28th. 
of  January,  sent  the  same  commissioners  to  him  whom  he  had 
sent  previously  to  the  Basilica  of  S.  Peter.3  They  must  have 
again  offered  an  oath  to  the  Pope,  and  invited  him  to  return 
to  Constantinople.  He  answered :  "  If  the  Emperor  will 
arrange  the  affairs  of  the  Church  and  restore  peace  again,  as 

1  This  is  related  in  a  document  first  edited  by  Baluze  (Mansi,   t.  ix.  p. 
56  sqq.  ;   wanting  in  Hardouin),  which  is  nothing  but  a  letter  of  the  Roman 
clergy  to  good  friends  (supposed  to  be  the  Gallican  envoys)  on  the  events  con- 
nected with  Vigilius.     At  the  same  time  a  confession  of  faith  of  the  Pope  is 
appended,  very  similar  to  that  which  he  embodied  in  his  Encyclica  of  February 
5,  552  (see  next  sec.).     This  confession  of  faith  is,  however,  dated  August  25, 
551  (Justinian  entered  upon  the  government,  at  first  co-government,  April  1, 
527).     If  this  date  is  correct,  this  confession  of  faith  cannot  have  been  issued 
from  the  Church  of  S.  Euphemia,  but  earlier,  from  the  Basilica  of  S.  Peter. 
Moreover,  the  date,  August  25,  551,  refers  only  to  the  confession  of  faith,  and 
not  to  the  whole  document ;  for  this  contains  references  to  later  events,  particu- 
larly to  the  ill-treatment  of  the  Pope  in  S.  Euphemia's  Church,  noted  above. 

2  He  mentions  this  at  the  beginning  of  his  Encyclica.     Mansi,  I.e.  p.  50  ; 
Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  3. 

8  In  the  Encyclica  of  the  Pope,  in  Mansi,  erroneously  under  the  date  Kalendis 
Februarii.  That  this  is  false  appears  from  the  fact  that  even  there  that  day  is 
indicated  as  Sunday,  whilst  February  1,  552,  fell  upon  a  Thursday  (cf.  Weiden- 
bach,  Calendarium  historico-christianum,  pp.  32  and  86)  ;  and  moreover,  it  is 
said  below,  in  the  same  document,  of  a  somewhat  later  incident,  that  the 
imperial  officer  of  State,  Peter,  came  again  to  the  Pope  pridie  Kalendas  Febr. 
We  read  therefore,  in  Hardouin,  instead  of  Kalendas  Febr.,  correctly  v.  Kal. 
Febr.,  for  January  28  was  certainly  a  Sunday.  We  see  this  not  only  from  the 
Tables  of  Weidenbach,  but  also  from  a  passage  of  the  Encyclica  of  the  Pope 
(Mansi,  I.e.  p.  55  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  7),  where  also  February  4,  552,  is  mentioned 
as  Sunday. 


his  uncle  Justin  did,  I  need  no  oath,  and  will  immediately 
appear.  If,  however,  he  will  not  do  this,  I  likewise  need  no 
oath,  for  I  will  not  leave  the  Church  of  S.  Euphemia,  unless 
the  offence  is  first  removed  from  the  Church." 

At  the  same  time,  Vigilius  placed  before  the  commis- 
saries what  he  had  said  to  the  bishops  in  that  conference 
(sec.  264),  when  he  had  betaken  himself  to  S.  Peter's  Church, 
and  drawn  up  the  sentence  of  punishment  against  Ascidas 
and  Mennas,  etc.  He  also  informed  the  Emperor,  through 
the  commissaries,  that  he  would  have  no  intercourse  with 
the  excommunicated  men. 

At  the  end  of  January  one  of  those  commissaries,  Peter, 
appeared,  for  the  second  time,  in  the  Church  of  S.  Euphemia, 
and  presented  a  document  which  Vigilius  was  required  to 
accept.  He  refused,  and  declared  the  document  to  be  a 
forgery,  because  it  was  not  signed  by  the  Emperor,  and  also 
because  the  commissary  would  not  sign  it.  Its  contents 
are  unknown.  Vigilius  says  only  that  it  was  full  of  untruths, 
insults,  and,  moreover,  of  accusations  against  the  Vicar  of  the 
Prince  of  the  Apostles.  It  was,  however,  the  occasion  of  his 
addressing  an  Encyclical  to  all  the  faithful,  in  which  he 
relates  all  that  we  have  communicated  from  this  Encyclical. 
To  this  he  adds  the  information,  already  given  above,  of  his 
being  ill-treated  in  the  Church  of  S.  Peter,  of  his  being 
subsequently  induced  by  an  oath  to  return  to  the  palace  ;  but, 
notwithstanding,  of  his  being  obliged  to  flee  to  the  Church  of 
S.  Euphemia.  In  order,  however,  he  proceeds,  that  the  lies 
circulated  might  deceive  no  one,  he  adds  a  complete  confession 
of  faith,  in  which  he  first  recognises  the  importance  of  the 
four  (Ecumenical  Synods,  and  then  emphasises  the  unity  of 
the  person  and  the  duality  of  the  natures  in  Christ,  and 
finally,  anathema  is  pronounced  upon  Arius,  Macedonius, 
Eunomius,  Paul  of  Samosata,  Photinus,  Bonosus,  Nestorius, 
Valentinus,  Manes,  Apollinaris,  Eutyches,  Dioscurus,  and  their 
doctrines.  Finally,  this  Encyclical  relates  that,  on  Sunday, 
February  4,  that  State  official,  Peter,  had  come  again,  and 
had  declared  in  the  name  of  the  Emperor  that  the  Pope 
should  determine  on  what  day  the  imperial  commissaries 
should  appear  again,  in  order  to  take  a  new  oath  to  him, 


since  he  was  required  to  leave  the  Church  of  S.  Euphemia 
and  return  to  the  capital.  Vigilius  declared  anew,  he  only 
wished  that  the  Emperor  would  restore  peace  to  the  Church, 
for  the  sake  of  which  he  had,  seven  years  ago,  come  to  Con- 
stantinople. As,  however,  Peter  had  no  sufficient  authority, 
he  had  wished  that  the  Emperor  would  give  adequate  security 
on  oath,  through  two  high  officials,  so  that  Dacius  and  some 
others  might  personally  go  to  the  Emperor,  and  by  commission 
of  the  Pope  make  arrangements  with  regard  to  the  affairs  of 
the  Church.1  So  far  goes  the  Encyclical  of  the  Pope,  dated 
February  5,  552. 

What  immediately  followed  upon  this  is  not  reported  in 
the  original  document.  We  may  suppose,  however,  that,  by 
the  negotiations  of  Dacius  and  the  others,  the  matter  took 
this  turn,  that  Mennas,  Ascidas,  and  their  friends  should 
present  a  confession  of  faith  to  the  Pope  that  should  be 
satisfactory  to  him,  and  that  the  Synod,  long  resolved  upon, 
should  finally  be  held  for  the  settlement  of  the  controversy. 
What  is  certain  is,  that  now  Mennas,  Theodore  Ascidas, 
Andrew  of  Ephesus,  Theodore  of  Antioch  in  Pisidia,  Peter  of 
Tarsus,  and  many  other  Greek  bishops,  presented  a  confession 
of  faith  to  the  Pope,  who  was  still  in  the  Church  of  S. 
Euphemia ;  and  that  Vigilius  was  satisfied  with  it,  and  after- 
wards received  it  into  his  Constitutum,  so  that  by  that  means 
we  still  possess  it. 

They  declared  in  this  that  they  desired  the  unity  of  the 
Church,  and  therefore  had  set  forth  this  document,  to  the 
effect  that  they,  before  everything,  held  fast  inviolably  to 
the  four  holy  Synods  of  Nicaea,  Constantinople,  Ephesus,  and 
Chalcedon,  as  well  to  their  decrees  on  the  faith  as  to  their 
other  ordinances,  without  adding  or  subtracting  anything ; 
and  that  they  would  never  do,  or  allow  anything  to  be  done,  to 
the  blame,  or  to  the  alteration,  or  to  the  reproach  of  these 
Synods  under  any  pretext  whatever;  but,  on  the  contrary, 
would  accept  everything  which,  by  general  decree,  in  agree- 
ment with  the  legates  and  of  the  apostolic  see,  had  then  been 
pronounced.  In  like  manner,  they  were  ready  to  give  a 
complete  assent  to  the  letters  of  Leo,  and  to  anathematise 

1  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  50  sqq.  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  3  sqq. 


everyone  who  acted  against  them.  As  regarded,  however, 
the  matter  now  coming  in  question  respecting  the  three 
chapters,  none  of  them  had  prepared  a  statement  on  this 
subject  in  opposition  to  the  agreement  between  the  Emperor 
and  the  Pope  (A.D.  550,  sec.  262B);  and  they  were  agreed 
that  all  writings  should  be  given  over  to  the  Pope  (i.e.  should 
first  be  put  out  of  operation — until  the  decision  of  a  Council). 
As  for  the  injuries  which  the  Pope  had  experienced,  they 
were  not  in  fault,  yet  they  would  ask  forgiveness  as  though 
they  had  themselves  committed  them.  So,  too,  they  would 
ask  forgiveness  for  having,  during  the  time  of  division,  held 
communion  with  those  whom  the  Pope  had  excommunicated.1 

SEC.  266.    Vigilius  gives  and  recalls  his  Assent  to  the 
holding  of  an  (Ecumenical  Synod. 

Soon  afterwards  Mennas  died,  in  August  552,  and  a  short 
time  before  also  Dacius  of  Milan ; 2  but  Eutychius  received 
the  see  of  Constantinople,  and  soon  after  his  entrance  upon 
office  also  sent  a  confession  of  faith  to  the  Pope,  on  the  Feast 
of  the  Theophany,  i.e.  January  6,  552.  And  he  affirms, 
before  everything,  his  love  for  unity  in  the  faith,  through 
which  God's  grace  was  obtained,  then  speaks  of  his  loyal 
adhesion  to  the  four  holy  Synods,  and  declares  that  he  will 
thoroughly  agree  with  the  letters  which  the  Eoman  bishops, 
particularly  Leo,  wrote  on  the  true  faith.  As  regards  the 
three  chapters,  however,  which  come  into  question,  a  common 
consultation  must  be  held,  and  a  final  decision  arrived  at  in 
accordance  with  the  four  holy  Synods. 

Along  with  Eutychius  there  subscribed  at  the  same  time 
Apollinaris  of  Alexandria  (sec.  264),  Domnus  or  Domninus 
of  Antioch,  and  Elias  of  Thessalonica.  Besides  these,  all 
those  bishops  who  had  not  subscribed  the  former  confession 

1  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  62  sq.  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  10  sq. 

2  Dacius  died  not  on  January  14,  553,  as  Noris  (t.  i.  p.  633)  thought,  but 
between  February  and  June  of  552,  as  the  Ballerini  showed  (Norisii  Opp.  t.  iv. 
p.  857).     Cf.  Pagi,  ad  ann.  552,  n.  18  and  25  ;  Walch,  I.e.  S.  214.     Victor  of 
Tununum  is  quite  mistaken  in  stating  that  Dacius,  in  the  year  554,  subscribed 
the  anathema  on  the  three  chapters,  and  died  on  the  same  day  (Galland.  t.  xii. 
p.  231). 


of  faith  of  Mennas  and  Ascidas,  expressed  their  agreement, 
but  without  any  special  giving  of  names.1  Vigilius  replied, 
January  8,  553,  in  several  letters,  all  to  the  same  effect, 
addressed  to  Eutychius,  Apollinaris,  etc.  "  He  rejoices,"  he 
says,  "  in  a  high  degree  at  the  end  of  the  separation.  He 
has  received  the  letter  of  Eutychius,  which  he  subscribed 
with  joy  (he  inserts  his  letter  verbally  in  his  own),  and  also 
he  will  remain  inviolably  faithful  to  the  true  faith  therein 
confessed.  Finally,"  he  says,  "  he  is  thoroughly  in  accord 
with  this,  that  a  general  consultation,  under  his  presidency, 
servata  aquitate,  on  the  subject  of  the  three  chapters,  should 
be  held,  and  that  by  a  common  decision,  in  accordance 
with  the  four  holy  Synods,  all  division  should  be  taken 
away." 2 

A  letter  of  convocation  referring  to  this  Synod  is  no 
longer  extant;  we  learn,  however,  from  a  somewhat  later 
edict  of  the  Emperor,  that  he  summoned  the  assembly.3 
From  the  same  document  and  from  the  Constitutum  of 
Vigilius 4  we  learn  further,  that  the  latter,  after  Mennas, 
Ascidas,  Eutychius,  and  others  had  sent  him  the  declarations 
of  faith,  and  the  Emperor  had  demanded  from  all  the  bishops 
the  sending  of  the  same  kind  of  confessions,  wished  that  they 
should  hold  the  Synod  that  had  been  agreed  upon  in  Italy  or 
Sicily,  at  which  numerous  bishops  might  be  present  from 
Africa  and  other  parts  of  the  West,  where  hesitation  was  felt 

1  This  letter  of  Eutychius,  from  Constantinople,  to  Vigilius  is  found  in  Latin 
in  the  Constitutum  of  the  latter  (M-nsi,  t.  ix.  p.  63  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  11) ; 
and  in  Greek  in  a  Parisian  MS.  among  the  Acts  of  the  first  session  of  the  fifth 
(Ecumenical  Synod  (Mansi,  I.e.  p.  186  ;   Hardouin,   I.e.  p.  59),  and  partially 
among  the  Acts  of  the  fifth  session  at  Florence  (Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  402).     Remarks 
on  this  letter  are  made  by  Gamier,  Diss.  de  V.  Synodo,  in  Schulze's  edition  of 
the  works  of  Theodoret  of  Cyrus,  t.  v.  p.  545. 

2  This  letter  of  Vigilius  is  found  in  Greek  and  Latin  in  a  Parisian  Codex, 
printed  in  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  187  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  62.     In  the  expression, 
servata  sequttate,  some  would  discover  that  Vigilius  had  already  required  that 
an  equal  number  of  Latins  and  Greeks  should  be  present  at  the  Synod.     But 
the  expression  may  also  have  a  general  sense,  such  as  is  contained  in  the  Greek 
official  version  of  the  papal  letter  in  the  corresponding  expression,  ««<  rov  3/*«/»i/ 
<PI/X«TTO^I»«I/.     Cf.  Gamier,  I.e.  p.  546. 

3  "Ideo  vos  vocavimus  ad  regiam  urbem,"  in  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  181 ;  Hardouin, 
t.  iii.  p.  56. 

4  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  61  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  10  sqq. 


as  to  the  rejection  of  the  three  chapters.  The  Emperor, 
however,  did  not  agree  to  this,  but  made  the  proposal  to 
summon  to  Constantinople  those  bishops  whom  the  Pope 
wished  to  consult.1  Probably  the  Emperor  speedily  gave  up 
this  plan,  because  he  might  fear  that,  by  bringing  in  these 
Africans,  etc.,  a  great  opposition  to  his  plans  might  be 
occasioned.  In  short,  the  Africans  and  others  did  not  come ; 
but  Vigilius  was  still  unwilling  to  take  part  in  a  Synod 
where,  besides  himself  and  a  few  other  Latins,  merely  Greeks 
were  to  be  present.  In  order  to  make  a  compromise,  the 
Emperor  made  the  proposal,  soon  before  Easter,  either  to 
summon  a  tribunal  for  decision,  or  to  hold  a  smaller  assembly, 
to  which  from  all  parts  an  equal  number  of  bishops  might  be 
got  together.2  Vigilius  understood  this  to  mean  that,  of  all 
the  many  Greek  bishops  who  were  present,  only  as  many  as  he 
had  Latins  around  him  should  be  chosen  to  the  conference;  but 
the  Emperor  meant  that  from  each  patriarchate  there  should 
be  a  like  number  of  bishops  chosen,  and  so,  as  many  from 
Constantinople  as  from  the  West,  and  again,  as  many  from 
Alexandria,  etc. 

Taking  the  matter  in  his  sense,  the  Pope  prepared  to 
bring  only  three  bishops  from  his  side  with  him,  and  so  from 
the  Greek  side  there  should  be  only  four  persons  selected,  the 
three  patriarchs  and  one  other  bishop  besides.  But  the 
Emperor  demanded  that  each  Greek  patriarch  might  bring 
three  to  five  bishops  with  him.3  As  the  Pope  would  not 
agree  to  this,  and  on  the  other  side  the  Emperor  and  the 
Greek  bishops  rejected  the  Pope's  proposal,4  Vigilius  paid  no 
regard  to  the  repeated  request  that  he  would,  without  further 
delay,  appear  at  the  Synod,  but  declared  that  his  intention  was 
to  express  his  judgment  in  writing  and  for  himself ; 5  and  the 
Synod  was  therefore  opened  without  his  presence,  in  order  to 
advance  the  via  facti,  and  by  the  fait  accompli  to  make  the 
Pope  compliant. 

1  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  64  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  12. 

2  Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  64  and  182  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  pp.  12  and  57. 

3  Mansi  and  Hardouin, 

4  Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  65  and  182;  Hardouin,  I.e.  pp.  13  and  57. 

5  Cf.  the  sentence  of  the  Synod,  in  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  370;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  189 



SEC.  267.  The  first  Session  and  the  Acts  of  the  Synod. 

IN  accordance  with  the  imperial  command,  but  without  the 
assent  of  the  Pope,  the  Synod  was  opened  on  the  5th  of 
May  553,  in  the  Secretarium  of  the  Bishop's  Church  at 
Constantinople.1  Among  those  present  were  the  Patriarchs 
Eutychius  of  Constantinople,  who  presided,2  Apollinaris  of 
Alexandria,  Domninus  of  Antioch,  three  bishops  as  repre- 
sentatives of  the  Patriarch  Eustochius  of  Jerusalem,  and 
145  other  metropolitans  and  bishops,  of  whom  many  came 
also  in  the  place  of  absent  colleagues.  At  the  close  of  the 
Synod  164  members  signed.  At  the  first  session  six  Africans 
came  up,  at  the  last  eight,  among  them  Bishop  Sextilian  of 
Tunis  as  representative  of  Archbishop  Primosus  (Primasius, 
sec.  362B)  of  Carthage.3 

The  Greek  Acts  of   our  Synod  have  been  lost;  but   we 
still  possess  a  Latin  translation  of  them,  which  was  probably 

1  The  two  codices  of  Paris  and  Beauvais  agree  in  giving  Hi  nonas  lifaias  as 
the  day  of  the  opening  of  this  Synod  ;  that  of  Surius,  on  the  contrary,  had  iv 
nonas  J/aias  =  May  4.     That  the  latter  is  incorrect,  is  clear  from  the  statement 
of  the  synodal  deputies  who  were  sent  to  the  Pope  at  the  first  session.     They 
came  to  him  for  the  first  time  on  the  5th  of  May.     He  appointed  them  for  the 
next  day,  and  they  relate  in  the  second  session  that  they  received  an  answer 
from  him  on  the  6th  of  May  (Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  194  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  65). 
The  5th  of  May  is  also  supported  hy  the  circumstance  that  it  fell  upon  a  Monday 
in  the  year  553,  and  Synods  were  generally  opened  on  a  Monday.    Cf.  Ballerini 
in  their  edition  of  the  works  of  Cardinal  Noris,  t.  iv.  p.  960. 

2  On  the  presidency  at  the   fifth  Synod,   cf.  vol.   i.    p.    31,   and   Natalia 
Alexander,  Hist.  Eccl.  sec.  vi.  t.  v.  p.  436,  ed.  Venet.  1778. 

3  The  order  in  which  the  bishops  are  entered  in  the  minutes  of  the  first 
session  is  different  to  some  extent  from  that  of  their  own  signatures  at  the  last 
session.     Cf.  Garnerii  Diss.  dc  V.  Synodo,  in  Schulze's  edition  of  the  works  of 
Theodoret,  t  v.  pp.  543  sq.  and  569  sq. 

IV.  19 


prepared  at  the  time  of  the  Synod  for  the  use  of  Pope 
Vigilius,  and  can  be  shown  to  have  been  used  by  one  of  his 
nearest  successors,  Pelagius  n.  (578— 59 O).1  The  questions 
whether  these  Acts  are  genuine,  gave  occasion  to  an  exten- 
sive inquiry  at  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Council  in  the  year  680. 
At  its  third  session  the  Acts  of  the  fifth  were  read  from  a 
manuscript  which  was  divided  into  two  books ;  and  in  the 
first  book  the  so-called  preliminary  Acts  seem  to  be  contained, 
and  in  the  second  the  minutes  proper  of  the  sessions  with 
appendices.  When  from  the  first  book  a  supposed  letter  of 
Mennas  to  Pope  Vigilius  on  the  unity  of  the  will  in  Christ 
(in  the  sense  of  Monothelitism)  began  to  be  read,  the  papal 
legates  protested,  and  declared  this  document  spurious.  It 
was  immediately  shown,  in  fact,  that  it  was  written  by 
another  hand  than  the  other  pieces  in  the  first  book,  and 
upon  leaves  which  had  been  added  afterwards,  and  were  not 
paged  like  the  others.  The  Emperor  Constantine  Pogonatus 
therefore  would  not  allow  this  document  to  be  read  further  at 
the  sixth  Synod ; 2  and  in  the  course  of  time  it  has  completely 
disappeared ;  it  is  not  now  extant. 

The  second  book  of  the  Acts  of  the  fifth  Council  was  then 
read,  and  when  they  came  to  those  two  letters  which  Vigilius 
was  said  to  have  written  to  the  Emperor  Justinian  and  to  his 
consort  (with  the  expression  unam  operationem,  sec.  259), 
the  papal  legates  also  protested  against  the  genuineness  of 
these  two  documents,3  and  an  examination  was  instituted, 
the  result  of  which  we  find  in  the  minutes  of  the  fourteenth 
session.  So  far  there  were  used,  at  the  sixth  Synod,  two 
manuscript  collections  of  the  Acts  of  the  fifth  Council,  taken 
from  the  archives  of  the  patriarchate  of  Constantinople:  (1) 
a  parchment  codex,  divided  into  two  books,  which,  in  its  first 
book,  contained,  as  we  have  remarked,  that  spurious  letter  of 
Mennas ;  (2)  a  paper  codex  which  contained  only  the  Acts  of 
the  seventh  session.  On  further  examination,  the  Dean 

1  Of.  the  Prsefatio  Baluzii,  in  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  164. 

2  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  226  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1067.     At  the  twelfth  session  of 
the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Council  also,  the  spurionsness  of  this  Epistola  Mennx 
was  recognised.     Cf.  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  527;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1311. 

3  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  226  sq.  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1070.     In  the  twelfth  session 
this  protest  was  also  discussed.    Mansi,  I.e.  p.  527  sq.  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1311. 


and  Chartophylax  George  found  in  the  archiepiscopal  archives 
of  Constantinople,  besides,  (3)  a  third  codex,  also  written  on 
paper,  and  containing  the  Acts  of  the  whole  of  the  fifth  Synod. 
He  declared  on  oath  that,  in  these  old  books,  neither  by  him 
nor,  with  his  consent,  by  anyone  else,  had  any  alteration 
whatever  been  made ;  and  he  was  now  commissioned  by  the 
sixth  Synod  to  compare  these  three  codices  with  one  another, 
and  with  other  old  paper  manuscripts  of  the  earlier  Council 
(where  these  were  found  we  are  not  told).  It  was  then 
discovered  (a)  that  the  latter  and  the  codex  No.  3  did  not 
contain  those  letters  of  Mennas  and  Vigilius ;  (&)  that  in  the 
first  book  of  the  parchment  codex  No.  1,  three  quaterns 
(sheets  of  four  leaves  each)  had  been  added  by  a  later  hand, 
and  that  in  these  the  letter  of  Mennas  was  found  (besides 
that,  probably  other  documents)  ;  (c)  that  in  the  second  book 
of  that  parchment  codex,  in  the  section  relating  to  the  seventh 
session,  between  the  original  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  sheets,  a 
sheet  had  been  at  a  later  period  inserted,  not  paged,  and  con- 
taining the  two  supposititious  letters  of  Vigilius ;  and  that  (d) 
the  paper  codex  No.  2  had  been  falsified  in  the  same  manner. 
The  Council  therefore  decided  to  cancel  the  three  documents 
thus  shown  to  be  spurious  in  MSS.  No.  1  and  No.  2,  to  mark 
them  respectively  with  an  obelus,  and  anathematise  them.1 

By  another  way  we  arrive  at  the  same  result,  that  these 
three  pieces  were  not  found  in  the  oldest  collections  of  the 
Acts  of  the  fifth  Council.  In  the  fourteenth  session  of  the 
sixth  (Ecumenical  Synod  the  following  is  related  by  Constantine, 
a  presbyter  of  Constantinople  and  a  Latin  grammarian  (Gram- 
maticus  Latimis).  Not  long  before  (about  thirty  years),  Paul, 
then  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  had  visited  the  archives,  and 
had  there  discovered  a  codex  which  contained  a  Latin  transla- 
tion of  the  Acts  of  the  fifth  (Ecumenical  Council.  At  the 
command  of  the  patriarch  he,  the  Grammaticm,  had  com- 
pared this  codex  with  the  Greek,  and  had  found  that  the  two 
letters  of  Vigilius  were  lacking  in  it.  At  the  express  command 
of  the  patriarch  he  had  translated  them  from  the  Greek, 
and  added  them  to  the  Latin  codex.2  Accordingly  the  two 

1  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  587  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1359  sqq. 
-  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  594  sq.  ;  Hardouiu,  t.  iii.  p.  1363  sq. 


letters  were  not  in  the  old  Latin  codex,  but  only  in  a  Greek 
translation  of  the  Latin  original.  That  Latin  codex,  however, 
which  the  Patriarch  Paul  found  about  the  year  650,  was 
certainly  nothing  but  a  copy  of  the  original  Latin  translation, 
which,  if  we  are  not  mistaken,  was  made  for  Vigilius.  Such 
a  Latin  codex,  either  the  original  codex  of  Vigilius  itself  or  a 
copy,  the  papal  legates  had  naturally  brought  from  Rome  with 
them,  and  as  the  letter  of  Mennas  and  the  two  letters  of 
Vigilius  were  lacking  in  it,  they  made  their  protest  both  on 
this  formal  ground,  and  on  account  of  the  Monothelite  tendency 
of  the  contents  of  these  two  documents.  There  are  two  alter- 
natives possible :  Either  these  documents  are  entirely  spurious, 
and  had  no  existence  at  the  time  of  the  fifth  Synod,  but  were 
fabricated  at  a  later  period  by  a  Monothelite,  and  are  therefore 
to  be  removed  from  the  collection  of  the  Acts ; l  or  they  are 
— at  least  the  two  letters  of  Vigilius  (the  lost  one  of  Mennas 
was,  without  doubt,  quite  spurious) — for  the  most  part 
genuine,  and  they  were  certainly  read  in  the  seventh  session 
of  our  Council,  but  they  had  not  yet  the  addition  unam 
operationem,  and  this  must  have  been  interpolated  by  a 

Baluze  declared  for  the  latter  theory  in  his  fine  Prcefatio 
in  acta  Concilii  V.;z  and  even  Baronius  (ad  ann.  680,  n.  47) 
anticipated  him  here.  Moreover,  it  must  not  be  overlooked 
that  the  two  letters  of  Vigilius  in  question,  apart  from  the 
phrase  unam  operationem,  entirely  fit  that  time  of  Vigilius, 
and  certainly  have  witnesses  for  their  genuineness  in  the 
Emperor  Justinian,  in  his  minister  Constantino,  and  in 
Facundus  of  Hermione,  since  all  three  declare  that  Vigilius 
at  that  time  (before  his  Judicatum)  had  privately  promised 
the  Emperor,  in  writing,  an  anathema  on  the  three  chapters 
(sec.  259).  That  these  two  letters  are  wanting  in  the  oldest 
collections  of  the  Acts  of  the  fifth  Council  in  no  way  proves 
their  entire  spuriousness,  for  the  collections  of  conciliar  Acts 
have  always  been  very  different  in  completeness,  and  in 

1  This  is  the  view  of  the  Ballerini  in  their  edition  of  the  works  of  Cardinal 
Noris,  t.  ir.  p.  1038. 

2  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.   163  sqq.     Walch  agreed  with  him,  Ketzerhist.  Bd.  viii. 
S.  80. 


many  there  were  wanting  documents  of  uncontested  genuine- 

The  first  who  printed  the  Acts  of  the  fifth  (Ecumenical 
Synod,  now  extant  only  in  Latin,  was  Surius,  in  the  year 
1567.1  He  had  at  command  only  one  old  manuscript.  The 
Roman  editors  restricted  themselves  to  reprinting  his  text, 
as  they  had  no  manuscript  at  hand.  Labbd  was,  on  the 
contrary,  fortunate  enough  to  be  able  to  compare  a  second 
manuscript,  Codex  Parisiensis,  belonging  to  Joly,  precentor  of 
Paris ;  but  he  did  not  make  his  work  sufficiently  thorough. 
Baluze  was  the  first  to  make  full  use  of  the  Paris  codex,  and 
found  in  it  a  series  of  the  most  important  variations  from  the 
text  of  Surius.  He  was  able,  besides,  to  compare  a  Codex 
Sellovacensis,  which  Hermant,  the  learned  canon  of  Beauvais, 
had  lent  him,  and  which  almost  entirely  harmonised  with  the 
text  of  Surius.  Thus  equipped,  Baluze  brought  out  a  much 
better  edition  of  the  Acts  of  the  fifth  Council,  accompanied 
with  critical  notes,  and  introduced  by  a  very  interesting 
Praefatio.2  We  find  his  work  also  completely  copied  in 
Mansi  (t.  ix.  p.  163  sqq.),  whilst  Hardouin  has  made  only 
partial  use  of  it.3 

Besides  the  genuineness  of  our  Acts,  their  completeness 
has  also  become  subject  of  discussion.  This  is  connected  with 
the  question  whether  the  fifth  (Ecumenical  Synod  was  merely 
occupied  with  the  controversy  on  the  three  chapters,  or  also 
held  several  sessions  on  Origen  and  his  adherents.  The  most 
important  defender  of  the  latter  view  was  Cardinal  Noris,4 
who  maintained  that,  before  the  eight  sessions,  the  Acts  of 
which  have  come  to  us,  there  were  one  or  several  other 
sessions  for  the  purpose  of  examining  and  censuring  Origen, 
but  that  their  Acts  are  entirely  lost.  So  also,  that  the  Synod, 
after  settling  the  matter  of  the  three  chapters,  occupied 
themselves  further  with  Origenism,  and  anathematised  two 
Origenists  long  dead,  Didymus  the  Blind  and  the  deacon 

1  Only  a  few  documents  in  Greek  are  now  extant.     We  shall  indicate  them 
particularly  further  on. 

-  In  his  S-upplcmentum  Conciliorum,  p.  1475  sqq. 

*  Cf.  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  51,  and  t.  i.  Prscf.  p.  viii. 

4  Noris,  Diss.  de  Synodo  V.  c.  6,  in  the  edition  of  his  works  by  the  Ballerini, 
t.  i.  p.  638  sqq. 


Evagrius  Ponticus  (f  399).  That  the  first  part  of  this 
hypothesis,  namely,  that  the  eight  sessions,  whose  Acts  we 
have,  and  which  were  occupied  only  with  the  matter  of  the 
three  chapters,  were  preceded  by  others,  is  not  tenable,  was 
seen  by  the  Ballerini,  in  their  defence  of  Noris's  dissertation 
against  the  Jesuit  Gamier.1  As  we  related  above,  the  Acts 
of  our  Council  were  examined  at  the  sixth  (Ecumenical 
Synod,  particularly  a  codex  which  contained  only  the  seventh 
session,  and  it  was  there  shown  that  what  is  now  called  the 
seventh  session  was  originally  marked  by  the  same  number. 
We  cannot,  therefore,  assume  that  one  or  more  sessions  were 
held  before  those  of  which  we  possess  the  Acts.  This  decided 
the  Ballerini  to  alter  the  hypothesis  of  Cardinal  Noris  to  this 
extent,  that  it  was  not  until  after  the  eight  sessions  on  the 
three  chapters  that  some  further  sessions  were  held  on 
account  of  Origen,  Didymus,  and  Evagrius,  Our  Acts,  they 
thought,  were  thus  incomplete,  as,  moreover,  is  clear,  since  the 
usual  acclamations  in  honour  of  the  Emperor,  etc.,  are 

A  direct  proof  from  antiquity,  that  the  Acts  of  the  fifth 
Synod  had  once  been  more  complete,  Noris  and  the  Ballerini 
could,  therefore,  not  discover  ;  but  they  thought  that  they 
were  justified  in  such  an  assumption,  or  even  forced  to 
it,  by  inferences  from  passages  in  the  Fathers. 

(a)  The  priest  Cyril  of  Scythopolis,  who  was  a  con- 
temporary of  the  fifth  Council,  a  disciple  of  S.  Sabas,  and  one 
who,  as  a  member  of  the  great  Laura  in  Palestine,  took 
part  in  the  Origenist  controversy  of  that  time,  says,  in  his 
biography  of  S.  Sabas,  c.  90,  quite  expressly:  "When 
the  holy  and  (Ecumenical  fifth  Synod  was  assembled  in  Con- 
stantinople, they  smote  with  common  and  catholic  anathema 
Origen  and  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  and  also  what  Evagrius 
and  Didymus  had  taught  on  pre-existence  and  restitution.3 

(6)  Of  almost  equal  antiquity  with  the  priest  Cyril  was 

1  Cf.  the  edition  by  the  Ballerini  of  the  works  of  Cardinal  Noris,  t.  iv. 
p.  1014  sq. 

2  Ballerini,  I.e.  p.  1019. 

3  Cyrilli   Vita  Sabse,  c.   90,   in  Coteler.  Ecdcs.    Grxcse  Moimmcnta,  t.  iii. 
p.  374. 


the  ecclesiastical  historian  Evagrius,  at  the  time  when  our 
Synod  was  held,  a  youth  of  about  fifteen  years.  He  also 
writes,  in  his  Church  History  (lib.  iv.  c.  38),  that  the  fifth 
(Ecumenical  Synod,  after  the  Palestinian  monks  Eulogius, 
Conon,  etc.,  had  presented  a  memorial  against  Origen  (after 
the  anathematising  of  the  three  chapters),  had  also  pronounced 
a  condemnation  on  Origen  and  his  adherents,  particularly  on 
the  blasphemies  of  Didymus  and  Evagrius. 

(c)  The    third    witness    whom    Noris    and  the  Ballerini 
adduce  is  the  Lateran  Synod  of  649,  at  which  (c.  18),  and 
in    an   utterance   of   Bishop    Maxim  us    of  Aquileia,   Origen, 
Didymus,  and  Evagrius  are  mentioned  among  those  anathe- 
matised by  the  first  five  Synods.1     Since,  then,  no  decree  was 
drawn  up  against  these  three  men  by  the  first  four  Councils ; 
this  must  have  been  done  by  the  fifth  (Ecumenical  Synod. 

(d)  The    sixth    (Ecumenical    Council,    too    (A.D.    680), 
declares,  in  its  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  sessions,  that  the 
fifth     Synod    was    assembled    on    account    of    Theodore    of 
Mopsuestia,  Origen,  Didymus,  and  Evagrius.2 

(e)  To  the   same  effect  the  seventh  (Ecumenical  Synod 
expresses  itself  in  its  seventeenth  session  (Hardouin,  t.  iv.  p. 
454),  not  to  mention  other  less  important  witnesses.     From 
all  these  utterances  Noris  and  the  Ballerini  are  led  to  the 
supposition,    that,   besides    the    eight    sessions    of    the    fifth 
Council,  of  which  we  possess  the  Acts,  others  must  have  been 
held  on  account  of  Origen,  etc. 

The  contentions  of  Cardinal  Noris  on  this  subject  were 
opposed  by  the  Jesuit  Garnier  in  his  dissertation  contributed 
to  the  Breviarium  of  Liberatus,  De  quinta  Synodo,  c.  2,  and 
particularly  c.  5.3  In  the  re-editing  of  this  treatise  in  the 
Actuarium  of  his  edition  of  the  works  of  Theodoret,  he  left 
out  the  greater  part  of  this  (the  old  fifth  chapter) ;  but  he 
retained  the  principal  portion,  maintaining  that  Origen, 
Didymus,  and  Evagrius  were  not  anathematised  at  the  fifth 

1  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  pp.  924  and  707  ;  Mansi,  t.  x.  pp.  887  and  1158. 

2  Mansi,  t.  xi.  pp.  631  and  710  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  pp.  1395  and  1455. 

3  Reprinted  in  Galland.  t.  xii.  pp.  169  and  175  sqq. 

4  Reprinted  in  Bd.  v.  of  Schulze's  edition  of  the  works  of  Theodoret,  p.  527. 


It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  the  argument  of  Cardinal 
Noris  and  the  Ballerini  has  much  to  recommend  it,  and  that 
their  witnesses  are  of  importance ;  nevertheless,  we  are 
unable  to  agree  with  them,  and  can  go  no  further  than  to  say 
that  certainly  the  fifth  Synod  anathematised  Origen,  but  not 
in  a  special  session,  and  not  in  consequence  of  special  trans- 
actions, but  only  transeundo  and  in  cumido,  since,  in  their 
eleventh  anathematism,  among  a  number  of  older  heretics, 
they  brought  forward  his  name  (see  below).  The  names  of 
Evagrius  and  Didymus  we  do  not  find  in  the  Acts  of  our 
Synod  at  all.  The  reasons  which  we  oppose  to  Noris  and  the 
Ballerini  are  the  following  : — 

(a)  That  only  half  of  the  Acts  of  the  fifth  (Ecumenical 
Council  have  come  to  us  is  hinted  at  by  none  of  the 
ancients,  and  yet  this  is  the  main  assumption  of  Cardinal 
Noris,  etc. 

(J)  In  the  imperial  edicts  which  called  our  Council  into 
being,  and  prescribed  the  direction  of  its  activity,  there  is 
nowhere  any  reference  to  Origen,  but  only  the  rpia  Ke<j)a\aia 
are  always  indicated  as  the  subject  with  which  the  Synod 
has  to  deal. 

(c)  To  the  same  effect  Pope  Vigilius,  in  the  two  edicts  in 
which  he  confirmed  the  fifth  Synod  several  months  after  its 
close,  speaks  only  of  the  three  chapters,  and  not  in  the  least 
of  Origen,  Didymus,  and  Evagrius,  as  little  as  of  the  other  old 
heretics   who   are  brought  forward  in  the  eleventh   anathe- 
matism of  the  Synod. 

(d)  The  inferences  that  the  close  of  our  Acts  is  wanting, 
because  no  acclamations  are  contained  in  them,  and  that  only 
that  part    of    the    minutes    was    translated    into    Latin  for 
Vigilius  which  dealt  with  the  three  chapters,  because  only 
this  interested  him,  and  not  the  part  concerning  Origen,  are 
two  quite  arbitrary  assumptions  of  the  Ballerini  (I.e.  p.  1019) 
which  have  nothing  to  support  them. 

(e)  In  subscribing  the  minutes  of  the  eighth  session,  the 
Patriarch  Eutychius  recapitulated  in  brief  all  that  had  been 
decreed  without  giving  one  syllable  of  a  reference  to  Origen, 
from  which  (in  spite  of  Noris)  it  is  clear  that,  at  least  up 
to  this  time,  no  special  transaction  had  taken  place  at  our 


Synod  on  account  of  Origen.  If,  however,  he  was  named 
only  transeundo  in  the  eleventh  anathematism,  Eutychius  had 
no  more  reason  to  refer  to  him  than  to  the  other  old  heretics 
there  brought  forward. 

(/)  Pope  Gregory  the  Great  says :  "  The  Synod  which 
dealt  with  the  three  chapters  anathematised  only  one  single 
person,  namely,  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia." l  This  he  could  not 
have  said,  if  the  Eoman  copy  of  the  synodal  Acts  had  con- 
tained a  special  sentence  against  Origen.  Only  in  the 
eleventh  anathematism  the  Eoman  copy  of  the  synodal  Acts 
also  contains  the  name  of  Origen  along  with  those  of  other 
old  heretics ; 2  and  Gregory  names  these  here  as  little  as 
Origen,  because  the  anathema  on  them  did  not  belong  to  the 
special  business  of  the  fifth  Council. 

(g)  We  have  already  remarked  that  the  Church  his- 
torian Evagrius,  one  of  the  chief  witnesses  of  Cardinal 
Noris,  confounded  the  fifth  Synod  with  the  one  held 
somewhat  earlier  (A.D.  543)  under  Mennas,  which  did 
anathematise  Origen  and  drew  up  fifteen  propositions  against 

(h)  With  Cyril  of  Scythopolis,  however,  we  may  perhaps 
suppose  a  slight  error.  Victor  of  Tununum  says,  ad  aim. 
565  (Galland.  t.  xii.  p.  231),  that  the  Emperor  Justinian,  in 
this  year,  exiled  Eutychius,  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  the 
damnator  trium  capitulorum,  et  Evagrii  eremitce  diaconi  ac 
Didymi  monachi.  This  points  to  the  fact  that  the  Patriarch 
Eutychius,  after  the  holding  of  our  Synod  at  which  he  pre- 
sided, published  an  edict  in  his  diocese,  and  therein  made 
known  the  decrees  of  the  fifth  Council,  at  the  same  time 
pronounced  anathema  on  Evagrius  and  Didymus,  and  also  on 

1  Gregor.  M.  lib.  ii.  Epist.  51,  Opp.  t.  ii.  p.  615  (alias  lib.  ii.  Epist.  36,  in 
Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  1105) :  "In  Synodo,  in  qua  de  tribus  capitulis  actum  est,  aperte 
liqueat,  nihil  de  fide  convulsum  esse  vel  aliquatenus  immutatum,  sed  sicut 
scitis,  de  quibus  dam  illic  sollummodo  personis  est  actitatum,  quarum  una,  cujus 
scripta  evidenter  a  rectitudine  catholics  fidei  deviabant,  non  injuste  damnata 

2  That  the  copy  of  the  Acts  of  our  Synod  extant  in  the  Roman  archives  had 
the  name  of  Origen  in  the  eleventh  anathematism,  we  learn  from  the  Lateran 
Synod  of  A.D.  649,  where  this  anathematism  was  read  from  the  Roman  copy, 
as  follows:    "Si  quis   non   anathematisat   Arium,   Eunomium,   Macedonium, 
Apollinarem,  Nestorium,  Eutychen,  Origenem,  cum  impiis  eorum  scriptis, "  etc. 


Origen  (perhaps  renewed  the  decrees  of  the  Synod  under 
Meunas).  If  this  was  so,  then  Cyril,  living  as  a  hermit 
in  the  remote  Laura,  might  easily  confound  the  edict  of 
Eutychius  following  the  fifth  Synod  with  this,  and  so  arrive 
at  his  conclusion  respecting  Origen.  If,  however,  the  state- 
ment was  once  circulated  by  him  and  Evagrius,  that  the  fifth 
Council  had  also  anathematised  Origen  and  the  others,  this 
might  have  been  repeated  by  a  hundred  others  ~bond  fide.  So, 
too,  at  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Council,  in  their  copy  of  the  Acts 
of  our  Synod,  amplified  as  we  know,  a  passage  may  have  been 
found  on  Origen,  Diodorus,  and  Evagrius.  It  is  quite  true 
that  here  a  critical  examination  of  the  copies  was  ordered ; 
but  this  extended,  as  far  as  we  can  see  from  the  text  of  the 
fourteenth  session  of  the  sixth  Council,  only  to  the  supposed 
letter  of  Mennas  and  the  two  letters  of  Pope  Vigilius ;  for  a 
comparison  and  examination,  extending  to  all  particulars, 
there  seemed  no  great  need,  nor  had  they  sufficient 

After  the  151  bishops  had  taken  their  places  at  the 
opening  of  our  Synod,  the  imperial  Silentiarius  Theodore 
begged  for  admission,  and  presented  a  letter  from  the 
Emperor,  dated  on  the  same  day  (May  5),  addressed  to  the 
Synod.  This  letter  was  immediately  read  by  the  deacon  and 
notary  Stephen,  and  ran  as  follows :  "  The  effort  of  my  pre- 
decessors, the  orthodox  Emperors,  ever  aimed  at  the  settling 
of  controversies  which  had  arisen  respecting  the  faith  by  the 
calling  of  Synods.  For  this  cause  Constantine  assembled 
318  Fathers  at  Nicsea,  Theodosius  150  at  Constantinople, 
Theodosius  the  younger  the  Synod  of  Ephesus,  the  Emperor 
Marcian  the  bishops  at  Chalcedon.  As,  however,  after 
Marcian's  death,  controversies  respecting  the  Synod  of  Chal- 

1  An  eager  denial  has  recently  been  given  to  the  statement  that  Origen  was, 
in  a  general  way,  anathematised  at  the  fifth  Synod,  by  Alois  Vincenzi,  Prof,  in 
Archigymnasio  litterarum  hebraicarum  in  Rome,  in  his  work,  In  sancti  Qregorii 
Nysseni  et  Origenis  scripta  ct  doctrinam  nova  defensio,  4  vols. ,  Rome  1865  ;  5th 
vol.  ibid.  1869  (t.  iv.  cc.  9  and  10,  and  t.  v.  App.  ii.  eta,  c.  5).  He  endeavours, 
in  a  very  thorough  manner,  to  transform  the  whole  history  of  the  fifth 
Oecumenical  Council,  and  has  declared  everything  false  and  untrue  which 
speaks  against  Origen  and  against  Pope  Vigilius.  Cf.  Tubingen  Theol.  Quartal- 
sehr.  1867,  S.  345  if. 


cedon  had  broken  out  in  several  places,  the  Emperor  Leo 
wrote  to  all  bishops  of  all  places,  in  order  that  everyone 
might  declare  his  opinion  in  writing  with  regard  to  this  holy 
Council.  Soon  afterwards,  however,  had  arisen  again  the 
adherents  of  Nestorius  and  Eutyches,  and  caused  great 
divisions,  so  that  many  Churches  had  broken  off  communion 
with  one  another.  When,  now,  the  grace  of  God  raised  us  to 
the  throne,  we  regarded  it  as  our  chief  business  to  unite  the 
Churches  again,  and  to  bring  the  Synod  .of  Chalcedon,  together 
with  the  three  earlier,  to  universal  acceptance.  We  have 
won  many  who  previously  opposed  that  Synod ;  others,  who 
persevered  in  their  opposition,  we  banished,  and  so  restored 
the  unity  of  the  Church  again.  But  the  Nestorians  want  to 
impose  their  heresy  upon  the  Church ;  and,  as  they  could  not 
use  Nestorius  for  that  purpose,  they  made  haste  to  introduce 
their  errors  through  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  the  teacher  of 
Nestorius,  who  taught  still  more  grievous  blasphemies  than 
his.  He  maintained,  e.g.,  that  God  the  Word  was  one,  and 
Christ  another.  For  the  same  purpose  they  made  use  of 
those  impious  writings  of  Theodoret  which  were  directed 
against  the  first  Synod  of  Ephesus,  against  Cyril  and  his 
twelve  chapters,  and  also  the  shameful  letter  which  Ibas  is 
said  to  have  written.  They  maintain  that  this  letter  was 
accepted  by  the  Synod  of  Chalcedon,  so  would  free  from  con- 
demnation Nestorius  and  Theodore  who  were  commended  in 
the  letter.  If  they  were  to  succeed,  the  Logos  could  no 
longer  be  said  to  be  '  made  man,'  nor  Mary  called  the  '  God- 
bearer.'  We  therefore,  following  the  holy  Fathers,  have  first 
asked  you  in  writing  to  give  your  judgment  on  the  three 
impious  chapters  named,  and  you  have  answered,  and  have 
joyfully  confessed  the  true  faith.1  Because,  however,  after 
the  condemnation  proceeding  from  you,  there  are  still  some 
who  defend  the  three  chapters,  therefore  we  have  summoned 
you  to  the  capital,  that  you  may  here,  in  common  assembly, 
place  again  your  view  in  the  light  of  day.  When,  for 
example,  Vigilius,  Pope  of  Old  Rome,  came  hither,  he,  in 
answer  to  our  questions,  repeatedly  anathematised  in  writing 

1  Gamier  (I.e.  p.  544)  remarks  on  this  that  many  had  been  compelled.     Cf. 
above,  sec.  258,  and  notes  there. 


the  three  chapters,  and  confirmed  his  steadfastness  in  this 
view  by  much,  even  by  the  condemnation  of  his  deacons, 
Eusticus  and  Sebastian.1  We  possess  still  his  declarations 
in  his  own  hand.  Then  he  issued  his  Judicatum,  in  which 
he  anathematised  the  three  chapters,  with  the  words,  Et 
quoniam,  etc.  (sec.  259).  You  know  that  he  not  only  deposed 
Kusticus  and  Sebastian  because  they  defended  the  three 
chapters,  but  also  wrote  to  Valentinian,  bishop  of  Scythia, 
and  Aurelian,  bishop  of  Aries,  that  nothing  might  be  under- 
taken against  the  Judicatum.  When  you  afterwards  came 
hither  at  my  invitation,  letters  were  exchanged  between  you 
and  Vigilius 2  in  order  to  a  common  assembly.  But  now  he 
had  altered  his  view,  would  no  longer  have  a  Synod,  but 
required  that  only  the  three  patriarchs  and  one  other  bishop 
(in  communion  with  the  Pope  and  the  three  bishops  about 
him)  should  decide  the  matter.  In  vain  we  sent  several 
commands  to  him  to  take  part  in  the  Synod.  He  rejected 
also  our  two  proposals,  either  to  call  a  tribunal  for  decision, 
or  to  hold  a  smaller  assembly,  at  which,  besides  him  and  his 
three  bishops,  every  other  patriarch  should  have  place  and 
voice,  with  from  three  to  five  bishops  of  his  diocese.3  We 
further  declare  that  we  hold  fast  to  the  decrees  of  the  four 
Councils,  and  in  every  way  follow  the  holy  Fathers,  Athanasius, 
Hilary,  Basil,  Gregory  the  Theologian,  Gregory  of  Nyssa, 
Ambrose,  Theophilus,  John  (Chrysostom)  of  Constantinople, 
Cyril,  Augustine,  Proclus,  Leo,  and  their  writings  on  the 
true  faith.  As,  however,  the  heretics  are  resolved  to 
defend  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  and  Nestorius  with  their 
impieties,  and  maintain  that  that  letter  (of  Ibas)  was  received 
by  the  Synod  of  Chalcedon,  so  do  we  exhort  you  to  direct 
your  attention  to  the  impious  writings  of  Theodore,  and 

1  Up  to  this  point  the  Paris  codex  does  not  vary  from  the  text  of  Surius. 
But  from  this  point  there  is  a  considerable  difference  for  a  large  space.     The 
Paris  codex  is  here  more  complete,  and  the  text  of  Surius  (and  the  codex  of 
Beauvais)   certainly  only  an   abridgment.     We  follow  the   Paris  codex,   but 
allow  ourselves,  in  the  translation  of  the  broad  imperial  letter,  several  abridg- 
ments and  contractions. 

2  He  meant  by  this,  as  we  subsequently  learn,  the  letters  of  Eutychius,  etc., 
to  the  Pope  (see  sec.  266). 

3  From  this  point  onwards  the  codices  again  agree. 


especially  to  his  Jewish  Creed 1  which  was  condemned  at 
Ephesus  and  Chalcedon.  You  will  thence  see  that  he  and 
his  heresies  have  since  been  condemned,  and  that  therefore 
his  name  has  long  since  been  struck  from  the  diptychs  of  the 
Church  of  Mopsuestia.  Consider  the  absurd  assertion  that 
no  one  who  has  died  is  to  be  anathematised ;  consider  further 
the  writing  of  Theodoret  and  the  supposed  letter  of  Ibas,  in 
which  the  incarnation  of  the  Word  is  denied,  the  expression 
'  Godbearer '  and  the  holy  Synod  of  Ephesus  rejected,  Cyril 
called  a  heretic,  and  Theodore  and  Nestorius  defended  and 
praised.  And,  as  they  say  that  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  has 
received  this  letter,  you  must  compare  the  declarations  of 
this  Council  relating  to  the  faith  with  the  contents  of 
the  impious  letter.  Finally,  we  entreat  you  to  accelerate 
the  matter,  and  commend  you,  holy  fathers,  to  the  divine 
protection." 2 

After  the  reading  of  the  imperial  letter,  the  Silentiarius 
was  required  to  withdraw ;  and  the  Synod  gave  orders  that, 
as  the  Emperor  spoke  of  a  correspondence  with  Vigilius,  the 
documents  connected  with  it  should  be  communicated.  The 
notary  Stephen  then  read  the  letter  of  Eutychius  of  Con- 

1  Cf.  above,  sec.  140  in  vol.  iii.    As  at  Chalcedon  the  Acts  of  the  third  Synod 
were  read  again,  and  (Sess.  i.)  among  them  the  censure  of  that  creed,  the 
Emperor  could  say  that  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  had  also  condemned  it.     \Ve 
think  it  necessary  to  remark  this,  in  opposition  to  Gamier  (I.e.  p.  544).     On 
the  creed  of  Theodore,  cf.  Walch,  Ketzerhist.  Bd.  v.  S.  354  and  887.     It  is 
reprinted  in  Mansi,  t.  iv.  p.  1347,  and  t.  ix.  p.  227  ;  Hardouin,  t.  i.  p.  1515, 
and  t.  iii.  p.  89. 

2  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  178  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  54  sqq.     A  criticism  of  this 
imperial  letter  is  given  by  Gamier  (I.e.  p.  544),  who  imputes  to  it  several 
errors.     In  the  Acts  of  our  Synod  this  letter  is  extant  only  in  an  old  Latin 
translation.     There  still  exists,  however,  the  Greek  text  of  a  similar  edict, 
printed  in  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  582;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  322.     At  the  beginning,  both 
texts,  the  Greek  and  the  Latin,  are  of  the  same  purport.     Further  on  the  Greek 
lias  a  long  passage  from  Cyril,  which  certainly  was  not  originally  there  (cf. 
Gamier,  I.e.  p.  537) ;  further  on,  the  Greek  text  leaves  out  much  which  is  found 
in  the  Latin.     At  the  end  the  Greek  text  gives  an  extract  from  the  decree  of  the 
fifth  Synod  on  the  three  chapters  (Sess.  viii.) ;  particularly  is  the  close  of  the 
synodal  decree  given  almost  verbally,  even  with  reference  to  the  passage  of 
Scripture,   Isa.   1.   (cf.   Mansi,   I.e.   p.    587  with   p.   376 ;   and  Hardouin,    I.e. 
p.  326  sq.  with  p.  193).     Gamier  (I.e.  p.  537)  thought  that  this  Greek  letter  of 
the  Emperor  and  the  decree  of  a  Synod  appended  to  it  belonged,  not  to  the  Acts 
of  the  fifth  Council,  but  to  an  earlier  Synod  held  by  Mennas,  A.D.  646 — an 
invention  of  Mennas.     Cf.  sec.  258. 


stantinople  to  Vigilius,  and  then  the  answer  of  the  Pope,  from 
both  of  which  documents  we  have  given  extracts  above l  (sec. 
266).  The  Acts  add  correctly  that  Apollinaris  of  Alexandria 
and  Domninus  of  Antioch,  together  with  their  suffragans  who 
were  present  in  the  residence,  had  addressed  quite  the  same 
letters  to  the  Pope  as  Eutychius,  and  had  received  the  same 
answer.  The  bishops  then  declared  that  although  several 
of  them  and  the  imperial  officials 2  had  already  frequently 
exhorted  Vigilius  to  enter  into  common  consultation  with 
them,  yet  it  was  reasonable  to  do  this  once  more ;  and 
thereupon,  whilst  the  rest  remained  assembled,  there  went  a 
highly  distinguished  and  numerous  deputation,  among  them 
the  three  Oriental  patriarchs,  to  the  Pope,  to  invite  him  to 
take  part  in  the  Synod.  They  returned  with  the  intelligence 
that  Vigilius  had  stated  that,  on  account  of  being  unwell, 
he  was  unable  to  give  them  an  immediate  answer,  and  he 
requested  the  deputies  to  come  again  next  day  in  order  to 
receive  his  answer.  In  expectation  of  this  they  closed  the 
first  session. 

SEC.  268.  Second  and  Third  Sessions  on  the  8th  and  9th 
of  May. 

On  the  8th  of  May  553,  the  same  bishops  came  together 
again  in  the  same  place,3  and  on  request  the  deputies  sent 
in  the  first  session  to  Vigilius  gave  an  account  of  their 
second  visit  to  the  Pope.  "  As  the  Pope  of  Old  Borne,"  they 
said,  "  appointed  the  next  day  for  us,  so  we  betook  ourselves 
again  to  him  on  the  6th  of  May,  two  days  ago,  reminded  him 
of  the  letters  already  exchanged  between  us  and  him,  and 
requested  him,  in  accordance  with  his  promise,  now  to  declare 
whether  he  would  take  council  in  common  with  us  '  on  the 

1  These  two  letters  are  extant  both  in  Greek  and  in  Latin. 

3  Judices,  a  title  of  high  office.  Du  Cange  (Glossar.  t.  iii.  p.  1570)  says  : 
"  J-udices  interdum  iidem,  qui  Comites,  Magnates,  Proceres  vel  Senatores. "  Cf. 
above,  sec.  188,  note  1. 

3  The  codex  of  Beauvais  again  mentions  all  the  bishops  by  name.  The 
same  seems  to  have  been  the  case  with  the  codex  of  Sunns.  But  Surius  himself 
shortened  it  with  et  cseteris.  The  Paris  codex,  finally,  mentions  by  name  only 
the  first  ten  bishops. 


subject  of  the  three  chapters.  He  refused  to  take  part  in 
the  Synod,  with  the  remark,  that  the  number  of  Orientals  was 
so  great,  and  that  he  had  only  a  few  bishops  with  him ;  so 
that  he  had  begged  the  Emperor  to  allow  more  bishops  to 
come  from  Italy.  We  replied  that  neither  by  us  nor  by  the 
Emperor  had  the  promise  been  given  to  await  the  arrival  of 
the  Western  bishops ;  whilst  Vigilius  had  promised  in  writing 
to  meet  with  us,  and  it  was  not  right  for  him  to  distinguish 
so  abruptly  between  Western  and  Eastern,  as  they  both  held 
the  same  faith,  and  that  in  the  case  of  the  first  four  (Ecu- 
menical Synods  not  many  Westerns  had  been  present.  And 
besides,  there  were,  in  fact,  a  good  many  Western  bishops 
from  Africa  and  Illyria  present  at  Constantinople.  He 
replied,  we  will  come  together  in  equal  numbers,  I  will  take 
three  bishops  with  me ;  from  the  other  side,  let  the  three 
patriarchs  come  with  one  other  bishop,  so  that  there  may  be 
four  on  each  side.  We  made  the  counter  proposal,  that  at 
least  each  patriarch  should  bring  with  him  the  same  number 
of  bishops  as  the  Pope,  and  added  that  it  was,  moreover,  un- 
becoming, that  out  of  so  many  bishops  who  were  here,  the 
matter  should  be  decided  by  so  few.  As  he  persevered  in  his 
refusal,  we  added,  that,  as  the  Emperor  had  commanded  us, 
as  well  as  him,  to  deliver  an  opinion  on  the  three  chapters, 
we,  on  our  part,  should  assemble  without  him  and  express  our 
view.  He  then  declared :  I  have  asked  the  Emperor  for  a 
delay  of  twenty  days,  within  which  time  I  will  answer  his 
written  question.  If  I  have  not  by  that  time  expressed  my 
opinion,  then  I  will  accept  all  that  you  decree  on  the  three 
chapters.  We  replied :  In  the  correspondence  between  us  and 
you  there  was  nothing  said  of  a  separate,  but  of  a  common 
declaration  on  the  three  chapters.  If  your  Holiness  only 
wishes  for  delay,  it  is  to  be  considered  that  the  matter  has 
already  lasted  seven  years,  since  your  Holiness  came  into  this 
city.  Moreover,  you  are  perfectly  informed  on  the  subject, 
and  have  already  frequently  anathematised  the  three  chapters, 
both  in  writing  and  orally.  Vigilius  refused  to  give  any 
further  answer.  We,  however,  persevered  in  the  request  that 
he  would  come  with  us,  and  immediately  gave  the  Emperor 
information  of  our  conference  with  Vigilius.  He  promised 


to  send  some  State  officials  (judices)  and  bishops  to  him,  in 
order  to  admonish  him  anew." l 

Diodorus,  the  Archdeacon  and  Primicerius  of  the  Notaries, 
now  declared  that  yesterday,  May  7,  the  Emperor  had  actually 
sent  several  State  officials,  together  with  a  number  of  bishops, 
to  the  Pope,  and  the  former  were  ready  to  give  a  report  con- 
cerning their  mission.     They  related  :  "  At  the  command  of 
the  Emperor,  we  had  recourse  to  Pope  Vigilius  on  the  1st  of 
May  in  the  company  of  Belisarius  and  others,  and  again  on 
the  7th  of  May  in  company  with  Theodore,  bishop  of  Csesarea, 
and  others,  and  presented  to  him  both  times  the  same  command 
of  the  Emperor,  that  he  would  either  negotiate  with  all  the 
bishops  in  common,  or,  if  he  did  not  like  this,  that  he  would 
first  with  the  patriarchs  and  some  other  bishops  consider  the 
question  of  the  three  chapters,  so  that  the  judgment  of  this 
commission  might  then  be  received  by  the  other  bishops.     He 
refused,  however,  both  the  consultation  with  all  and  that  with 
the  patriarchs,  and  demanded  delay,  in  order  that  he  might  give 
his  answer  alone.    We  told  him  that  he  had  already  frequently 
anathematised  the  three  chapters  alone,  both  in  writing  and 
orally,  but  that  the  Emperor  desired  a  common  sentence  upon 
them.     Vigilius,  too,  had  already  himself  communicated  to  the 
Emperor  his  wish  for  a  delay ;  and  had  received  for  answer, 
that,  if  he  were  really  ready  for  a  common  consultation  with 
the   bishops    or    patriarchs,   then    he   should   receive   a  still 
longer  delay.     As,  however,  he  was  now  visibly  trying  to  put 
the  matter  off,  it  was  necessary  that  the  other  bishops  should 
give  their  judgment  in  a  Synod.  .  .  .  We  presented  this  to  him, 
and  besought  him  repeatedly  to  take  part  in  the  Synod.     But 
he   persisted  in  his  refusal."2     This  report  of   the  imperial 
officials  was  confirmed  by  the  bishops  who  went  with  them  to 
Vigilius.     The  former  now  withdrew  again  from  the  session 
with  the  words :  "  The  bishops,  having  the  fear  of  God  before 
their  eyes,  should  make  a  short  end  to  the  affair,  and  be  con- 

1  Mansi,  t.  ix.  pp.  194-196  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  65.     In  regard  to  this  docu- 
ment also  the  Paris  codex  edited  by  Baluze  differs  considerably  from  the  text  of 
Surius  and  the  codex  of  Beauvais.     It  is  more  complete.     But  there  is  no  con- 
tradiction between  the  texts.     "VVe  have  followed  the  Paris  codex. 

2  Here,  too,  the  Paris  codex,  which  we  follow,  is  again  somewhat  more 
complete  than  the  other  text. 


viiiced  that  the  Emperor  held  inviolable  and  defended  the 
definitions  of  the  faith  of  the  four  holy  Synods,  and  rejected 
all  that  was  in  opposition  to  them.  At  his  command,  also, 
those  four  Synods  were  inscribed  in  the  diptychs — a  thing 
which  was  never  done  before."1 

The  Synod  thereupon  sent  deputies  to  the  Western  bishops 
present  in  Constantinople,  Primasius  of  Africa  (sec.  262s), 
Sabinianus,  Projectus,  and  Paul  from  Illyricum,  in  order  to 
request  their  appearance.  The  envoys  speedily  returned  with 
the  intelligence  that  Primasius  would  not  come  because  the 
Pope  was  not  there;  and  the  other  three  had  said  that  they 
must  first  take  counsel  with  their  archbishop,  Benenatus.  The 
Synod  resolved  to  inform  the  latter  that  Benenatus  was  in  fellow- 
ship with  the  Synod,  and  one  of  his  suffragans,  Phocas,  was  even 
present.  As  to  Primasius,  however,  his  case  should  be  decided, 
in  due  time,  according  to  the  rules  of  the  Church,  that  the 
Emperor  should  immediately  receive  information  on  this  point 
also,  and  that  a  new  session  should  be  held  on  the  following  day.2 

In  this,  the  third  session,  on  May  9,  553,  the  minutes  of 
the  two  previous  transactions  were  read,  and  then  a  confession 
of  faith  was  drawn  up  by  the  bishops,  which  was  partly 
identical  with  that  of  the  Emperor  in  his  edict  of  May  5,  and 
declares  adhesion  to  the  decrees  of  the  four  early  Councils, 
and  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Fathers,  Athanasius  and  others.  To 
this  the  Synod  adds  the  threat  of  anathema  on  all  who  should 
separate  themselves  from  the  Church  (certainly  with  allusion  to 
Vigilius),  and  closes  with  the  words :  "  In  regard  to  the  contro- 
versy on  the  three  chapters,  with  respect  to  which  the  Emperor 
questioned  us,  a  special  meeting  is  necessary  on  another  day."  s 

SEC.  269.  Fourth  Session  on  the  12th  or  13th  of  May. 

When  the  bishops  again  assembled  on  the  12th,  or,  accord- 


1  Mansi,  t.  ix.  ]>.  198  sq.  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  68.     Walch,  Ketzerhist.  Bd. 
viii.  S.  226,  has  misunderstood  the  text  of  the  Acts,  and  has  taken  the  parting 
words  of  imperial  officers  for  a  part  of  the  relation  of  the  bishops.     These,  he 
says,  had  added  that  the  Ministers  had  given  to  Vigilius  assurances  as  to  the 
orthodoxy  of  the  Emperor. 

2  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  196  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  67  sqq. 

3  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  200  sqq.  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  70  sq. 

IV.  20 


ing  to  the  Paris  codex,  on  the  13th  of  May,  they  caused  to  be 
read,  from  the  writings  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  the  passages 
already  collected,  on  account  of  which  he  had  been  accused 
of  heresy  by  the  holy  Fathers.1  Callonymus,  the  deacon  and 
notary,  read  no  fewer  than  seventy-one  passages,  together  with 
the  infamous  creed  of  Theodore  (see  sec.  267).  The  first  of 
these  passages  from  the  third  book  of  Theodore  against 
Apollinaris,  declares  the  difference  between  the  Word  and 
Him  who  was  born  of  Mary,  between  the  temple  and  the 
dweller  therein,  in  a  strong  Nestorian  sense.  The  same  mean- 
ing is  given  by  the  second  passage,  which  leaves  it  doubtful 
whether  the  Logos  was  united  with  the  Son  of  Man  in  the 
womb  of  Mary,  or  only  afterwards.  The  mere  dwelling  of 
the  Word  in  a  man  is  then  declared  very  distinctly  in  Nos.  3, 
4,  etc.  Twelve  of  these  passages  are  taken  from  the  books 
of  Theodore  against  Apollinaris,  others  from  his  commentaries 
on  John,  Matthew,  Luke,  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  Psalms,  and  Prophets,  from  the  works,  De  Incar- 
natione,  Ad  baptizandos,  De  creatura,  and  others.  Some  of 
them  we  have  used  above  (vol.  iil  sec.  127)  in  order  to  set 
forth  Theodore's  teaching,  and  this  has  been  done  more  com- 
pletely by  Dr.  Gengler  in  the  Tubingen  Theolog.  Quartalschrift, 
1835,  S.  223  ff. 

Even  during  the  reading,  after  the  twenty  -  seventh 
passage  which  speaks  of  a  dwelling  of  the  Godhead  in  man, 
and,  as  though  the  latter  had  been  supported  and  healed  by 
the  former,  the  Synod  exclaimed :  "  That  we  have  already 
condemned,  that  we  have  already  anathematised.  Anathema 
to  Theodore  and  his  writings  ...  a  Theodore,  a  Judas." 
And  after  the  whole  reading  was  ended,  they  exclaimed : 
'  This  creed  (Theodore's)  Satan  has  made.  Anathema  to  him 
who  made  this  creed !  The  first  Synod  of  Ephesus  anathema- 
tised this  creed  with  its  author.  We  know  only  one  creed, 
that  of  Nicaea :  the  other  three  Synods  have  also  handed  this 

1  It  is  not  known  who  prepared  this  anthology.  Some  have  supposed  Bishop 
Benignus  of  Heraclea  in  Pelagonia,  on  account  of  that  which  is  related  of  him 
below,  sec.  272.  Others  have  thought  the  Armenian  monks  (see  sec.  160  in 
vol.  iii.).  Gamier  (I.e.  p.  547)  thought  that  one  or  more  of  the  bishops  at  the 
Synod  had  undertaken  the  work. 

FIFTH   SESSION   ON   MAY  17.  307 

down;  in  this  creed  we  were  baptized  and  baptize  others. 
Anathema  to  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  !  He  has  rejected  the 
Gospels,  insulted  the  incarnation  of  God  (dispensatio,  oiKovo^ia, 
cf.  Suicer,  Thesaur.  s.v.).  Anathema  to  all  who  do  not  anathe- 
matise him  !  His  defenders  are  Jews,  his  adherents  heathens. 
Many  years  to  the  Emperor  !  .  .  .  We  all  anathematise 
Theodore  and  his  writings."  The  Synod  hereupon  declared  : 
"  The  multitude  of  blasphemies  read  out,  which  Theodore  has 
spit  out  against  our  great  God  and  Saviour,  essentially  against 
his  own  soul,  justifies  his  condemnation.  Yet  because  we 
will  be  quite  exact  in  the  examination  of  the  matter,  we  must 
hear  further  on  another  day."  l 

SEC.   270.  Fifth  Session  on  May  17. 

The  day  on  which  the  fifth  session  was  held  is  given  dif- 
ferently in  the  manuscripts  of  the  synodal  Acts.  The  codex  of 
Surius  had  viii  Idus  Maii  (  =  May  8).  But  this  reading  can- 
not possibly  be  received,  since  the  previous  session  took  place 
on  the  12th  or  13th  of  May.  The  Eoman  editors,  in  their 
Collection  of  the  Councils,  corrected  viii  Idus  into  Hi  Idus 
(  =  May  13),  and  endeavoured  to  justify  this  assumption  by  a 
passage  from  a  speech  of  Archdeacon  Diodorus  presently  to  be 
noticed.  Baluze  found,  however,  in  his  two  codices,  the  date 
xvi  Kal  Junias  (  =  May  17),  and  showed  that  this  reading  must 
be  retained,2  which  was  then  taken  by  Hardouin  into  the  text. 

At  the  beginning  of  this  session  Diodorus,  archdeacon  of 
Constantinople,  spoke  thus :  "  The  holy  Synod  remembers  that, 
on  a  former  day,3  they  had  recognised  the  impiety  of  Theodore 
and  his  writings,  but  at  the  same  time  had  resolved  in  another 
session  to  have  read  aloud  what  the  holy  Fathers  and  the 
imperial  edicts  pronounced  concerning  Theodore."4  The 

1  Mansi,  t.  ix.  pp.  202-230;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  pp.  71-91. 

2  Cf.  his  note  9  in  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  230.     The  Ballerini  also,  Norisii  Opera, 
t.  iv.  p.  960,  declared  for  this  date. 

3  The  expression  anteriore  die  docs  not  mean  neceasarily  the  day  immediately 
preceding,  as  the  Roman  editors  assumed  in  their  correction  of  date  mentioned 

4  The  Acts  of  this  session  are  found  in  Mausi,  t.  ix.  pp.  230-297  ;  Hardouin, 
t.  iii.  pp.  91-139. 


Synod  adhered  to  this  resolution,  and  after,  as  in  all  the  other 
sessions,  the  minutes  of  the  earlier  ones  had  been  read,  a 
deacon  brought  forward  from  the  now  lost  treatise  of  Cyril 
against  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  ten  passages  which  contained 
first  Theodore's  own  words  and  then  Cyril's  answer.1  This 
was  followed  by  a  rather  large  fragment  from  the  very 
violent  letter  of  the  Armenian  and  Persian  clergy  to  Proclus, 
formerly  bishop  of  Constantinople,  in  which  Theodore  is  called 
a  pestifer  Iwmo,  nay,  a  wild  beast  in  human  form,  and  his 
influence  and  his  errors  are  described.  From  the  answer  of 
Proclus  to  the  Armenians  two  small  passages  are  extracted  ; 2 
then  four  passages  from  four  letters  of  Cyril,  one  from  the 
letter  of  Nabulas  to  Cyril,  and  one  from  the  now  lost  Church 
History  of  Hesychius,  a  priest  of  Jerusalem  (in  the  fifth 
century),  in  which  the  biography  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia 
is  given  in  brief,  and  a  very  severe  judgment  pronounced  upon 
him.  Next  followed  two  imperial  edicts  of  Theodosius  the 
younger,3  and  two  utterances  of  Gregory  of  Nyssa  against 
Theodore.4  Finally,  in  proof  that  the  writings  attacked  by 
Cyril  really  proceeded  from  Theodore,  and  that  he  was 
accused  of  heresy  at  so  early  a  period,  three  passages  from 
Theodoret  were  held  sufficient.5 

The  examination  immediately  proceeded  to  another  point : 

1  On  this  writing  of  Cyril's :  Three  Books  against  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia 
and  Diodorus  of  Tarsus,  cf.  Fessler,  Patrologia,  t.  ii.  p.  564,  and  Gamier,  I.e.  p. 
547  sq. 

2  The  whole  answer  of  Proclus  is  preserved  among  the  Acts  belonging  to  the 
Council  of  Ephesus,  in  Mansi,  t.  v.  p.  421  ;  Hardouin,  t.  i.  p.  1722.     See  vol. 
iii.  sec.  160. 

3  These  we  have  met  already  (vol.  iii.  sees.  159  and  181),  and  find  also  in 
Mansi,  t.  v.  p.  413,  t.  vii.  p.  495  ;  and  Hardouin,  t.  i.  p.  1715,  t.  ii.  p.  673. 
The  latter  of  these  two  edicts  had  an  evil  reputation  in  the  Church  from  having 
been  directed  against  Flavian,  and  had  already  been  recalled  by  the  Emperor 
Marcian.     In  the  text  of  the  first  edict,  as  it  appears  in  Mansi,  t.  v.  p.  413,  and 
Hardouin,  t.  i.  p.  1715,  the  adherents  of  Nestorius  are  generally  anathematised, 
and  described  as  Simonians.     In  the  text,  however,  as  it  appeal's  in  the  Acts  of 
the  fifth  Synod,  the  names  of  Diodorus  and  Theodore  are  inserted  (Mansi,  t.  ix. 
p.  249  sq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  104).     So,  in  the  text  of  the  second  edict,  the 
name  of  Theodore  is  introduced.     Cf.  Gamier,  I.e.  p.  548. 

4  Gamier  (I.e.  p.  548  sq.)  regards  them  as  spurious. 

5  Mansi,  t.   ix.  pp.   231-254  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  pp.  92-108.     All  that  was 
brought  forward  in  the  fifth  session  against  the  Mopsuestian  was  intended  to 
send  as  answer  to  the  Defensio  of  Facundus.     Cf.  Gamier,  I.e.  p.  550. 

FIFTH   SESSION   ON   MAY  17.  309 

Whether  it  was  true  that  S.  Cyril,  in  one  of  his  writings,  had 
praised  Theodore  and  called  him  bonus  Theodorus.  In  order 
to  clear  up  this  question,  a  passage  was  read  from  the  treatise 
of  Cyril  against  Theodore,  in  which  this  phrase  certainly 
occurs :  "  Scriptum  est  a  bono  Theodore  adversus  hseresin 
Arianorum,"  etc. ;  but  that  which  goes  before  and  that  which 
follows  show  quite  clearly  that  on  one  point  Cyril  commended 
the  zeal  of  Theodore  and  yet  acccused  him  of  false  doctrine. 
So  also  several  letters  of  Gregory  of  Nazianzus  were  read,  in 
order  to  prove  that  the  Theodore  to  whom  they  were 
addressed  was  not  the  Mopsuestian,  but  the  bishop  of  Tyana 
(sec.  263) ;  which  was  confirmed  by  Euphranta,  who  was  then 
bishop  of  Tyana,  and  was  present  at  the  Synod,  and  by  Bishop 
Theodosius  of  Justinianopolis.1 

In  order  to  weaken  the  further  objection  of  the  opponents, 
that  no  dead  man  should  be  anathematised,  the  deacon 
Photinus  read  several  passages  from  Cyril ;  and  the  African 
bishop,  Sextilian,  declared  that  the  old  African  Synods  had 
decreed  that  those  bishops  who  left  their  property  to  heretics 
should  be  anathematised  even  after  their  death ;  Augustine, 
too,  had  expressed  himself  in  a  letter  in  favour  of  the  lawful- 
ness of  anathematising  one  who  is  dead  (see  sec.  263).  In 
proof  three  passages  were  read  from  Augustine,  upon  which 
Bishop  Benignus  of  Heraclea  remarked  that,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  many  had  been  anathematised  after  their  death,  e.g. 
Valentinus,  Marcian,  Apollinaris,  etc.,  and  many  Eusebians. 
In  agreement  with  this,  Eabulas  of  Edessa  had  anathematised 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  after  his  death,  and  so  had  the 
Roman  Church  Dioscurus,  bishop  of  Rome  (antipope),  after 
his  death,  although  he  had  never  offended  against  the 

Theodore  Ascidas,  John  of  Nyssa,  and  Basil  of  Justiniano- 
polis now  alleged  that  the  defenders  of  Theodore  relied  upon 
a  supposed  letter  of  S.  Cyril  to  John  of  Antioch,  in  which  the 
former  disapproved  of  the  anathema  on  Theodore.  They 
produced  the  letter,  and  showed  its  spuriousness  by  quoting 
the  genuine  utterances  of  Cyril  on  the  Mopsuestian.  From 

1  Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  255-259;  Hardouin,  I.e.  pp.  108-111. 

2  Mansi,  t.  ix.  pp.  259-263 ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  pp.  112-114.     Of.  sec.  263. 


other  passages  of  Cyril  they  showed  that  he  considered  an 
anathema  on  one  who  was  dead  as  allowable,  and  they  added 
that  the  opponents  could  not  support  themselves  by  the  fact 
that  Cyril  at  one  time  (vol.  iii.  sec.  160),  with  prudent  regard 
to  the  circumstances,  was  unwilling  to  obtain  an  anathema  on 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia.  As,  however,  this  toleration  (dispen- 
satio)  did  not  win  back  those  who  had  gone  astray,  Cyril  and 
Proclus  had  afterwards  expressed  themselves  the  more 
violently  against  Theodore.  The  Apostle  Paul,  too,  had  used 
similar  toleration  towards  the  weak,  and  had  even  kept  the 
ordinances  of  the  old  law.  So,  Basil  the  Great  and  Athanasius 
had  in  some  measure  commended  Apollinaris,  and  Pope  Leo, 
at  one  time,  Eutyches  (vol.  iii.  sec.  171) ;  but  afterwards  they 
anathematised  those  heretics.  So,  many  others  had  been 
anathematised  after  their  death,  e.g.  Origen.  Whoever  would 
go  back  to  the  times  of  Theophilus  of  Alexandria  and  still 
further,  would  find  this.  Indeed,  the  bishops  present  and 
Pope  Vigilius  had  done  the  same  in  regard  to  Origen.1  A 
supposed  letter  of  Chrysostom  in  honour  of  the  Mopsuestian, 
which  was  circulated  by  the  opposition,  was  spurious,  and 
contradicted  the  genuine  letter  of  Chrysostom  to  Theodore,  in 
which  he  blamed  him  for  abandoning  the  monastic  life. 
Nor  could  they  say  that  Theodore  had  died  in  the  communion 
of  the  Church,  for  only  he  who  held  the  true  faith  until  death 
died  in  Church  communion. — At  the  close  the  bishops  recited 
another  passage  from  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  which  declared  the 
doctrine  of  two  Sons,  and  so  the  doctrine  of  Theodore,  to  be 

After  the  long  addresses  of  the  three  bishops  the  Acts  of 
the  recently  held  Synod  of  Mopsuestia  (sec.  262),  with  the 
imperial  edicts  prefixed,  were  read,  in  proof  that  the  name  of 

1  From  this  passage  Noris  thought  (t.  i.  p.  639)  that  he  could  prove,  luce 
clariiis,  that  Origen  had  at  that  time  already  been  anathematised  by  the  fifth 
Synod.     But  Theodore  Ascidas  (who  is  here  the  speaker)  only  says,  in  this 
passage,   ' '  the  same  bishops  who  are  here  present  had  lately  anathematised 
Origen,  i.e.  had  received  the  imperial  edict  against  Origen  of  the  year  543."   If, 
however,  an  anathema  had  already  been  pronounced  on  Origen  by  the  fifth  Synod 
itself,  there  could  have  been  no  controversy  on  the  subject  of  the  lawfulness  of 
anathematising  a  man  after  his  death.     Quite  naturally  Vincenzi  explains  the 
mention  of  Origen  as  an  interpolation. 

2  Mansi,  t.  ix.  pp.  263-274  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  pp.  114-123. 

FIFTH   SESSION   ON   MAY   17.  311 

Theodore  had  long  ago  been  struck  out  of  the  diptychs  of  his 
own  church.1 

Here  the  inquiry  concerning  Theodore  closed,  and 
Theodoret  of  Cyrus  came  next  in  his  turn.  Several  passages 
from  his  writings  against  Cyril,  etc.,  were  read ;  namely,  four 
fragments  from  his  polemic  against  the  twelve  anathematisms 
of  Cyril,  four  fragments  from  some  discourses  of  Theodoret, 
and  five  merely  entire  letters  of  his.2  Theodoret  declared 
himself  here  as  openly  heterodox,  whilst  he  himself  wanted  to 
make  the  doctrine  of  Cyril  to  be  heretical.  In  order  to 
oppose  the  supposed  mingling  of  the  divine  and  the  human 
with  Cyril,  he  made  a  separation  in  a  Nestorian  sense  between 
Godhead  and  manhood  in  Christ,  and  rejected  expressions 
which,  up  to  the  present  day,  are  the  Shibboleth  of  orthodoxy 
in  the  Church.  In  the  first  fragment,  e.g.,  he  says,  "  God 
the  Word  is  not  incarnate " ;  in  the  second,  "  an  hypostatic 
union  we  do  not  acknowledge  at  all " ;  in  the  third  and  fourth 
he  opposes  the  communicatio  idiomatum ;  in  the  fifth  he  calls 
S.  Cyril  an  impius ;  in  the  sixth  an  impugnator  Christi ;  in 
the  seventh  a  novus  hcereticus,  who  confuses  the  natures  in 
Christ,  etc.3 

After  the  reading  was  finished  the  Synod  declared :  "  The 
accuracy  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  is  wonderful.  It 
recognised  the  blasphemies  of  Theodoret,  at  the  beginning  it 
directed  many  exclamations  against  him,  and  received  him 
only  after  he  had  anathematised  Nestorius  and  his  blas- 
phemies.— On  a  subsequent  day  an  inquiry  was  to  be 
instituted  on  the  last  chapter,  the  letter  of  Ibas." 4 

1  Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  274-289  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  pp.  123-134. 

2  The  last  of  these  letters,  with  the  superscription  to  John  of  Antioch,  is 
ambiguous.     One  who  is  dead  is  there  violently  blamed  (the  superscription  of 
the  letter  says  Cyril  of  Alexandria) ;  but  John  of  Antioch  died  before  Cyril,  and 
it  was  therefore  impossible  that  Theodoret  should  write  on  the  death  of  Cyril  to 
John  of  Antioch.     Either,  then,  the  letter  is  spurious,  or  we  must  think  of 
another  than  the  Alexandrian  (as  Basnage  did) ;  or  we  must  assume,  with  Peter 
de  Marca  and  Noris,  that  in  the  superscription  of  the  letter  instead  of  John  of 
Antioch  we  should  read  Domnus  of  Antioch.    Cf.  Garnier,  De  libris  Theodoreti, 
in  Schulze's  edition  of  the  works  of  Theodoret,  t.  v.  p.  376  ;  Ballerini  (in  Noris, 
Opera,  t.  iv.  p.  961),  and  Walch,  Ketzerhist.  Bd.  viii.  S.  273  f. 

8  Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  289-297  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  pp.  134-139. 
4  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  297  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  139. 


SEC.  271.  Sixth  Session  on  May  19. 

In  the  sixth  session,  May  19,  553,  the  minutes  of  the 
previous  meetings  were  again  read  at  the  beginning,  and  the 
Synod  then  declared :  "  As  certain  persons  maintain  that  the 
supposed  letter  of  Ibas  was  received  by  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon,  and,  in  proof,  appeal  to  the  utterances  of  one  or 
another  member  of  that  assembly,  whilst  at  the  same  time  all 
the  other  bishops  were  not  of  the  same  view,  the  letter  in 
question  must  first  of  all  be  read."  This  was  done,  and  our 
Acts  contain  here  the  Latin' translation  of  the  letter  which  is 
preserved  in  the  Greek  original  in  the  minutes  of  the  tenth 
session  of  Chalcedon.  We  gave  its  chief  contents  above  (vol. 
iii.  sec.  196).  The  Synod  then  ordered  the  reading  of  the 
letter  of  Proclus  to  John  of  Antioch,  in  which  the  former 
relates  that  Ibas  had  been  accused  before  him  of  being  an 
adherent  of  Nestorianism,  and  of  having  translated  writings 
of  Theodore  into  Syriac  and  circulated  them.  After,  then, 
the  Synod  had  pronounced  the  rejection  of  the  letter  to 
Maris  in  general,  Theodore  Ascidas  and  three  other  bishops 
gave  an  account  of  the  transactions  held  on  the  subject  of  Ibas 
more  than  a  hundred  years  ago  (vol.  iii.  sees.  169  and  1 9  6),  how 
he  had  been  accused,  but  at  Tyre  had  pronounced  anathema 
on  Nestorius,  and  maintained  that,  since  the  union  between 
Cyril  and  the  Orientals,  he  had  written  nothing  more  against 
him.  At  the  same  time,  he  had  denied  the  authorship  of  the 
letter.  Subsequently,  because  of  his  opposition  to  Cyril,  he 
had  been  deposed,  together  with  Domnus  of  Antioch  (the 
bishops  do  not  mention  that  this  was  done  at  the  Eobber-Synod, 
see  vol.  iii.  sec.  179),  and  that,  at  Chalcedon,  putting  aside 
the  question  about  the  letter,  he  had  spoken  only  of  the 
other  charges  which  were  brought  against  him.  The  bishops 
then  say,  further,  that  the  opposition,  with  heretical  slyness, 
referred  to  one  or  two  utterances  on  Ibas  which  were  made 
by  individual  members  at  Chalcedon,  in  order  to  prove  that 
the  Synod  had  accepted  his  letter.  But  in  Councils  nothing 
was  decided  by  the  utterance  of  one  or  another.  Moreover, 
these  votes l  should  be  considered  more  closely,  and  it  would  be 
1  [Voices  rather— testimonies  in  favour  of  the  accused  during  the  discussion.] 

SIXTH  SESSION   ON   MAY   19.  313 

found  how  these  very  voters  (indirectly)  rejected  the 
letter,  since  they  demanded  of  Ibas  that  he  should 
acknowledge  the  Council  of  Ephesus  and  anathematise 
Nestorius,  the  direct  contrary  of  which  was  contained  in  the 

The  bishops  then  adduced  some  of  the  testimonies  (vota) 
given  at  Chalcedon,  particularly  that  of  Eunomius  of 
Nicomedia,  to  which  the  opposition  particularly  appealed,  as 
if  he  had  blamed  the  first  part  of  the  letter,  but  commended 
the  second.1  They  show  that,  by  the  words  in  posterioribus 
recte  confessus,  not  the  latter  part  of  the  letter,  but  the  later 
confession  of  Ibas  at  Chalcedon,  is  meant.  All  the  bishops  at 
Chalcedon  had  demanded  from  Ibas  an  anathema  on 
Nestorius,  who  was  commended  in  that  letter ;  and  Ibas  had 
given  such  an  anathema ;  and  so  had  done  it  twice  over. 
On  the  one  hand,  he  had  denied  the  authorship  of  the  letter ; 
on  the  other  hand,  he  had  (indirectly)  anathematised  the 
letter  itself.2  The  bishops,  however,  pass  over  the  most 
important  votes  in  silence,  namely,  that  of  the  papal  legates 
and  that  of  the  Patriarch  Maximus  of  Antioch  (vol.  iii.  sec. 
196).  The  former  said:  "Relectis  chartis  agnovimus  ex 
sententia  reverendissimorum  episcoporum  (the  commission  at 
Tyre)  Ibam  innoxium  probari.  Eelecta  enim  ejus  epistola 
agnovimus  eum  esse  orthodoxum."  Similarly  Maximus :  KOI 
eic  TOV  avayvwo-OevTos  8e  avnypdfov  777?  eViCTcX?}*?  .  .  . 
6/3$o£o£o<?  UKJ>0rj  avrov  rj  vTrayopia? 

In  order  to  make  it  more  completely  clear,  by  comparison, 
that  the  letter  to  Maris  is  heretical,  they  caused  a  series  of 
documents  of  the  Synods  of  Ephesus  and  Chalcedon  to  be 
read,  as  follows : — 

1.  The  second  letter  of  Cyril  to  Nestorius  (vol.  iii.  sec. 
129),  with  some  utterances  of  Cyril  and  other  bishops  at  the 
(Ecumenical  Synod  of  Ephesus,  bearing  upon  it. 

2.  The  answer  of  Nestorius  to  Cyril  (ib.  and  sec.  134) 
again  in  connection  with  the  judgments  rendered  at  Ephesus. 

1  This  Votum  is  found  here,  and  in  the  Acts  of  Chalcedon,  only  in  the  Latin 

2  Mansi,  t.  ix.  pp.  297-307 ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  pp.  139-147. 

3  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  539  ;  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  262. 


3.  The  letter  of  Coelestius  of  Eome  to  Nestorius. 

4.  The    letter   of  Cyril  and  the  Alexandrian  Synod   to 
Nestorius,  together  with  the  twelve  appended  anathematisms 
of  Cyril  (sees.  131  and  134). 

5.  From  the  minutes  of  the  second  session  of  Chalcedon 
(sec.  190)  they  read,  first,  the  demand  of  the  imperial  com- 
missaries, that  the  bishops  should  now  quickly  declare  the 
true  faith  (sec.  190),  and  next  the  famous  Epistola  dogmatica 
of  Leo  should  be  read  (sec.  176).     Also, 

6.  An   expression   of    Bishop    Atticus    from    the    same 
session    of    Chalcedon    (sec.    190),  from  which    it  is   plain 
that    the    Synod   had    recognised    the    letter    of    Leo   just 
named,  and    also    the    letter    of    Cyril  and    his    Synod   to 
Nestorius  as  an  expression  of  the   true  faith,  and  had  put 
it  into  the  hands  of  the  bishops  for  their  own  more  careful 

7.  A  number  of  other  documents  were  taken  from  the 
fourth  session  of  Chalcedon :  (a)  a  demand  of  the  imperial 
commissaries,  that  the  bishops  would  now  publish  their  view 
on  the  faith  without  fear  (sec.  192)  ;  (&)  the  second  demand, 
that    they  would    lay    their    hand    upon    the    Gospels    and 
declare  whether  the  letter  of  Leo  agreed  with  the  creed  of 
Nicaea  and  Constantinople ;  and  (c)  the  votes  of  the  bishops 
on  these  subjects. 

8.  Finally,  they  brought  forward,  from  the  Acts  of  the 
fifth   session  of   Chalcedon,  the   confession   of  faith   of   this 
Council,  together  with  the  creeds  of  Nicaea  and  Constantin- 
ople inserted  in  it  (see  sec.  193).1 

After  this  was  done,  the  deacon  and  notary  Thomas  was 
required  to  read  a  short  document,  prepared  beforehand,  in 
which  utterances  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  and  statements 
from  the  letter  to  Maris  were  set  over  against  each  other,  in 
order  to  show  that  the  Council  had  taught  the  opposite  of 
that  which  was  to  be  read  in  the  letter.  The  Council  said : 
"  God  the  Word  has  become  flesh  and  man,  is  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  one  of  the  Trinity " ;  the  letter,  on  the  contrary, 
called  everyone  a  heretic  and  an  Apollinarist  who  spoke  of 
an  incarnation  and  a  becoming  man  of  the  Divine  Word. 
1  Mansi,  t.  ix.  pp.  308-341  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  pp.  147-166. 

SIXTH  SESSION   ON   MAY   19.  315 

The  Council  called  Mary  the  Godbearer ;  the  letter  con- 
tested this  predicate.  The  Council  declared  its  consent  to 
follow  the  decrees  of  Ephesus,  and  anathematised  Nestorius  ; 
the  letter  insulted  the  Synod  of  Ephesus,  and  defended 
Nestorius.  The  Council  honoured  Cyril  as  a  teacher,  and  had 
accepted  his  letter  with  the  twelve  anathematisms ;  the  letter 
to  Maris  called  Cyril  a  heretic,  his  anathematisms  impious, 
and  blamed  his  doctrine  of  two  natures  and  one  person,  and 
of  the  Gommunicatio  idiomatum.  The  Fathers  of  the  Council 
confess  repeatedly  that  they  teach  exactly  as  Cyril  did  ;  the 
letter  scoffs  at  the  teaching  of  Cyril.  The  Council  anathema- 
tises all  who  introduce  another  creed;  the  letter  praises 
Theodore,  who  drew  up  an  impious  creed.  Generally,  the 
doctrine  of  the  letter  was  quite  opposed  to  that  of  Chalcedon, 
and  even  when  it  spoke  of  two  natures,  as  did  the  Synod  of 
Chalcedon,  it  signified  by  that  properly  two  persons,  like 

After  all  this  the  Synod  pronounced  the  sentence  :  "  The 
transactions  which  have  taken  place  show  clearly  that  the 
letter  which  Ibas  is  said  to  have  written  is  thoroughly 
contradictory  to  the  declaration  of  faith  of  Chalcedon. 
Therefore  all  the  members  of  that  Synod  demanded  that  Ibas 
should  anathematise  Nestorius,  whom  that  letter  defended, 
and  should  subscribe  the  declaration  of  faith.  In  doing  so 
they  showed  that  they  regarded  as  invalid  what  one  or  two 
had  said  in  favour  of  that  letter ;  whilst  these  also  united 
with  the  others,  and  accepted  Ibas  only  after  he  had  done 
penance  and  anathematised  Nestorius,  and  had  subscribed  the 
confession  of  faith  of  Chalcedon."  All  exclaimed :  "  The 
letter  is  heretical ;  we  all  condemn  this  letter ;  it  is  foreign 
to  the  Synod  of  Chalcedon.  It  is  quite  heretical,  quite 
blasphemous.  Whoever  accepts  it  is  a  heretic ;  the  declara- 
tion of  faith  of  Chalcedon  condemned  this  letter.  Anathema 
to  Theodore,  to  Nestorius,  and  to  the  letter  ascribed  to  Ibas. 
Whoever  does  not  anathematise  this  letter  insults  the  Synod 
of  Chalcedon.  Many  years  to  the  Emperor !  many  years  to 
the  orthodox  Emperor !  "  2 

1  .Man si,  t.  ix.  pp.  341-345  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  pp.  167-170. 

2  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  345  sq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  170. 


SEC.   272.   The  Constitution  of  Vigilius,  May  14,  533. 

During  the  sessions  of  the  Synod  heretofore  described, 
Pope  Vigilius  prepared  that  comprehensive  memorial  to  the 
Emperor,1  of  the  composition  of  which  he  had  already 
informed  the  commissaries  sent  to  him  in  the  words:  He 
would  within  twenty  days  set  forth  his  view  of  the  three 
chapters  separately  from  the  Synod  (sec.  268).  It  is 
headed,  Constitutum  Vigilii  Papce  de  tribus  capitulis,  and 
therefore  is  called  Constitutum,  and  is  dated  May  14,  553, 
from  Constantinople,  and  is  subscribed  by  sixteen  other 
bishops,  besides  Vigilius,  and  three  Eoman  clergy.2  Of  those 
sixteen  bishops,  nine  were  Italians — from  Marsi,  Scyllacium, 
Silva  Candida,  Cingulum,  Ariminum,  Malta,  Nomentum, 
Lipara,  Numana ;  two  Africans — from  Nasaita  and  Adru- 
metum  ;  two  from  Illyricum — from  Ulpianum  and  Zappara ; 
and  three  from  Asia — from  Iconium,  Claudiopolis,  and 
Melitene  in  Armenia.  The  three  Koman  clerics  were  Arch- 
deacon Theophanius  and  the  two  deacons  Pelagius  and  Peter.3 

The  Constitutum  begins  by  praising  the  Emperor  for 
having  demanded  declarations  of  faith  from  all  the  bishops, 
with  a  view  to  removing  the  discord  in  the  Church.  Two 
such,  the  Pope  proceeds,  had  already  been  given,  and  he 
inscribed  them  here  verbally,  namely,  that  of  Mennas  and 
Theodore  Ascidas,  and  the  somewhat  later  one  of  Eutychius, 
the  new  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  and  others  (sec.  265). 
He  had  wished  that  soon  an  assembly  (Synod)  might  be  held 
in  Italy  or  Sicily,  in  order  to  consider  the  subject  of  the 
three  chapters ;  but  the  Emperor  had  not  agreed  to  this,  and, 
on  the  contrary,  had  made  the  proposal  to  summon  to  Con- 
stantinople, from  Africa  and  other  Western  provinces,  those 
bishops  whose  names  the  Pope  would  put  down,  and  whom  he 

1  It  has  been  disputed  whether  and  when  the  Synod  received  a  sight  of  this 
Constitutum  from  the  Emperor.     But  this  dispute  is  quite  without  foundation, 
since  the  Emperor  did  not  receive  the  Constitutum  (and  therefore  could  not 
communicate  it  to  the  Synod),  as  we  see  from  the  statement  of  the  imperial 
Qurestor  Constantine  in  the  seventh  session.     Cf.  below,  sec.  273. 

2  Reprinted  in  Mansi,  t.  ix.  pp.  61-106  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  pp.  10-47. 

:t  On  these  friends  of  the  Pope,  cf.  Gamier,  I.e.  p.  555  ;  Noris,  I.e.  t.  i. 
p.  622  sq. 

THE   CONSTITUTUM  OF  VIGILIUS,   MAY   14,  533.  317 

wished  as  councillors.  Out  of  love  for  peace,  he  had  assented. 
A  short  time  before  Easter  the  Emperor  had  resolved  that  an 
equal  number  of  the  bishops  present  in  Constantinople  should 
consider  the  matter  (i.e.  as  Vigilius  understood  it,  as  many 
Greeks  as  Latins  ;  whilst  the  Emperor  meant  that  the  same 
number  of  bishops  should  be  chosen  from  each  patriarchate). 
Whilst,  then,  the  Pope,  in  giving  effect  to  his  view  of  the 
matter,  was  occupied  with  the  three  chapters,  the  officer  of 
the  palace,  Theodore,  had  handed  him  an  imperial  letter,  not 
many  days  before  Easter l — an  imperial  letter  in  which 
Justinian  already  pronounced  his  judgment  on  the  three 
chapters,  and  also  demanded  a  declaration  upon  them  from 
the  Pope  (this  means  the  edict  which  was  read  at  the  first 
session  of  the  fifth  Synod,  sec.  267).  The  Greek  bishops  had 
not  agreed  to  consider  the  matter  in  a  number  equal  to  that 
of  the  Pope  and  his  bishops,  nor  even  that  the  Pope  should 
set  forth  his  view  in  writing,  on  the  assumption  that  he 
would  make  concessions  by  word  of  mouth  which  he  would 
be  afraid  to  put  in  writing.  Moreover,  the  Emperor  had 
again  sent  officials  to  him  with  the  demand  that  he  would,  as 
soon  as  possible,  make  a  declaration  concerning  the  three 
chapters.  In  order  also  to  respond  to  this  wish,  he  had  now 
asked  for  a  delay  of  twenty  days,  in  reference  to  his  well- 
known  sickness,  and  had  sent  the  deacon  Pelagius  to  the 
bishops  with  the  explanation,  that,  as  the  customary  way  and 
manner  of  meeting  had  not  been  observed  they  ought  to  wait 
twenty  days  longer,  and  not,  in  opposition  to  the  rule  of  the 
Church,  give  their  own  judgment  before  the  appearance  of 
the  sentence  of  the  apostolic  see,  by  which  course  new 
troubles  might  arise.  He  had  now  carefully  examined  the 
Acts  of  the  four  old  holy  Synods,  the  decrees  of  his 
predecessors,  and  the  writings  of  other  tried  Fathers,  in 
regard  to  the  matter  of  the  three  chapters,  and  had 
scrutinised  the  paper  codex  which  the  Emperor  had  sent  to 
him  through  Bishop  Benignus  of  Heraclea,  in  Pelagonia.2 

1  Instead  of  ante  mullos  Paschte,  we  should  read  nan  ante  nmltos,  etc.,  as 
is  clear  from  what  goes  before.     Cf.  Gamier,  I.e.  p.  555. 

2  Pelagonia  is   a  part  of  Macedonia.     The  text    has    here,    by   mistake 
Paphlagonia.     Cf.  Noris,  I.e.  p.  603. 


This  contained,  in  its  first  part,  many  expressions  (of  Theodore 
of  Mopsuestia)  which  were  thoroughly  opposed  to  the  orthodox 
doctrine,  which  he  therefore  solemnly  anathematised,  and 
thought  well  to  embody  in  his  Constitutum. 

There  now  follow,  in  sixty  numbers,  the  most  of  those 
seventy-one  passages  from  several  books  of  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia  which  we  met  with  at  the  fourth  session l 
(sec.  269).  Immediately  after  each  of  these  verbally  quoted 
Capitula  Theodori,  Vigilius  makes  his  Respotisio  follow,  in 
which  he  endeavours  to  set  forth  briefly  their  heretical 
character.  After  he  had  once  more  condemned  them  ex 
apostolicce  sententice  auctoritate,  he  proceeds  :  As  the  codex 
communicated  to  him  by  the  Emperor  ascribed  these  in- 
famous passages  to  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  he  had  thought 
it  necessary  to  inquire  in  the  old  Fathers  what  had  been  said 
and  concluded  by  them  respecting  Theodore.  He  had  found 
that  S.  Cyril,  after  the  death  of  Theodore,  had  communicated 
the  following  concerning  him  in  a  letter  to  John  of  Antioch  : 2 
"As  the  declaration  of  faith  read  at  Ephesus,  ascribed  to 
Theodore,  contained  nothing  sound,  the  holy  Synod  had 
rejected  it,  as  full  of  perversities,  and  had  condemned  all  who 
thus  thought.  Of  the  person  of  Theodore,  however,  in 
particular,  they  did  not  speak,  did  not  anathematise  him  or 
any  other  by  name"  (vol.  iii.  sec.  206).  In  the  Acts  of  the 
first  Synod  of  Ephesus,  he  (Vigilius)  had  formed  no  judg- 
ment at  all  on  the  person  of  Theodore,  and  it  was  clear  that 
Cyril,  holding  the  priestly  moderation  in  regard  to  the  dead, 
had  not  wished  that  Theodore's  name  should  be  inscribed  in 
the  Acts,  as  he,  lower  down  in  his  letter,  also  blamed  those 
who  directed  their  arrows  against  the  ashes  of  Theodore  (vol. 
iii.  sec.  160).  In  proof  that  it  was  not  right  to  anathematise 
the  dead,  the  Pope  appeals  further  to  some  utterances  of 
Bishop  Proclus  of  Constantinople,  who  declared  that  he  had 
demanded  an  anathema  on  the  propositions  of  Theodore,  but 

1  These  sixty  numbers  contain  in   No.  13  a  fragment  of  Theodore  which 
was  not  contained  among  those  fragments  read  at  the  fourth  session.     More- 
over, Nos.  42  and  43  among  the  seventy-one  are  here  combined  into  No.  42,  so 
that  of  the  seventy-one  there  appear  here  properly  sixty,  and,  in  addition,  one 
new  passage. 

2  Mansi,  t.  v.  p.  993.     C.  206. 

THE   CONSTITUTUM  OF  VIGILIUS,  MAY   14,  533.  319 

not  on  his  person.  The  Council  of  Chalcedon,  too,  Vigilius 
goes  on,  had  decreed  nothing  on  the  person  of  Theodore,  and 
had  uttered  nothing  prejudicial  thereto,  whilst  they  had 
referred  with  recognition  and  commendation  to  that  letter  of 
John  of  Antioch  and  his  Synod  to  Theodosius  the  younger, 
then  Emperor,  in  which  Theodore  is  excused,  and  a  con- 
demnation of  him  after  his  death  deprecated.1  And  this 
allocution  the  Emperor  Justinian  himself  had  adduced  as 
testimony  in  his  edict  on  the  sentence,  "  One  of  the  Trinity 
was  crucified."  The  Pope  said,  he  had  further  inquired 
carefully  what  his  predecessors  had  said  on  the  question, 
whether  anyone  who  had  not  been  anathematised  in  his 
lifetime-  could  be  anathematised  after  his  death.  Against 
such  harshness  Leo  and  Gelasius  had,  in  particular,  declared 
themselves,  saying  that  the  dead  should  be  left  to  the  judg- 
ment of  God.  The  Eoman  Church,  too,  had  always,  in 
practice,  followed  this  rule,  and  in  like  manner  Dionysius 
the  Great,  of  Alexandria,  had  indeed  condemned  the  books  of 
the  departed  Bishop  Nepos,  because  they  contained  chiliastic 
error,  but  not  his  person  (see  vol.  i.  sec.  8).  Accordingly, 
the  Pope  said  he  did  not  venture  to  pronounce  anathema  on 
the  person  of  the  departed  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  and  did 
not  allow  that  others  should  do  so.  But  it  did  not,  in  the 
least,  follow  from  this  that  he  should  tolerate  or  find 
admissible  those  utterances  ascribed  to  Theodore,  or  any 
other  heretical  utterance. 

In  the  second  place,  as  regarded  the  writings  circulated 
under  the  name  of  Theodoret,  he  wondered  that  anything  was 
undertaken  to  the  dishonour  of  this  man,  who,  more  than  a 
hundred  years  ago,  had  subscribed  without  hesitation  the 
sentence  of  Chalcedon,  and  had  willingly  given  his  assent  to 
the  letters  of  Pope  Leo.  Although  Dioscurus  and  the 
Egyptian  bishops  at  Chalcedon  had  called  him  a  heretic,  yet 
the  holy  Synod,  after  a  careful  examination  of  Theodoret, 
had  required  nothing  else  from  him  than  that  he  should 
anathematise  Nestorius  and  his  heresy.  He  had  done  this 
with  loud  voice,  and  therewith  had  anathematised  at 

1  In  their  allocution  to  the  Emperor  Marcian,  see  vol.  iii.  sec.  193,  and 
Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  650  ;  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  466. 


Chalcedon  all  statements  of  Nestorian  tendency,  whenceso- 
ever  they  might  proceed  (thus  even  if  they  proceeded  from 
himself).  If  these  Nestorianising  propositions  were  con- 
demned, in  connection  with  the  name  of  Theodoret,  this 
would  be  an  insult  to  the  Synod  of  Chalcedon ;  and  it  would 
be  the  same  as  to  say  that  some  of  its  members  (namely, 
Theodoret)  had  on  one  side  rejected  the  Nestorian  heresies, 
and  on  the  other  had  upheld  them.  Nor  should  it  be  said 
that  the  Fathers  at  Chalcedon  had  neglected  to  enter  upon 
the  insults  which  Theodoret  had  cast  upon  the  twelve 
anathematisms  of  Cyril.  On  the  contrary,  this  shows  either 
that  Theodoret  had  not  been  guilty  of  this  offence,  or  that 
the  Fathers  had  chosen  to  follow  the  example  of  Cyril,  who, 
at  the  union,  passed  over  in  silence  all  the  insults  of  which 
the  Orientals  had  before  that  been  guilty  at  Ephesus.  By  this, 
that  Theodoret  solemnly  accepted  the  doctrine  of  S.  Cyril,  he 
had  given  him  adequate  satisfaction.  For  this  reason  also 
nothing  should  now  be  undertaken  to  the  dishonour  of 
Theodoret ;  but  the  Pope  anathematises  all  statements  favour- 
able to  Nestorianism  or  Eutychianism,  whether  they  are 
circulated  under  the  name  of  Theodoret  or  of  any  other.  It 
must  certainly  suffice  that  he  (the  Pope)  should  anathematise 
Nestorius  with  Paul  of  Samosata  and  Bonosus,  Eutyches  with 
Valentinus  and  Apollinaris,  and  all  other  heretics  with  their 
heresies.  He  will,  however,  add  specially  five  anathematisms. 

1.  If  anyone  does  not  confess   that,  without    encroach- 
ment on  the  unchangeableness  of  the  divine  nature,  the  Word 
became  flesh,  and  by  the  conception  in  human  nature  was 
hypostatically  united  with  it,  but,  on  the  contrary,  says  that 
the  Word  united  Himself  with  an  already  existing  man,  and 
therefore  does  not  call  the  holy  Virgin  in  the  full  sense  God- 
bearer,  let  him  be  anathema. 

2.  If  anyone  denies  the  hypostatic  union  of  the  natures 
in  Christ,  and  says  that  God  the  Word  dwelt  in  a  separately 
existing  man,  as  one  of  the  righteous,  and  does  not  confess  an 
hypostatic  union  of  the  natures,  in  such  a  manner  that  God 
the  Word  remained  one  subsistence  or  person  with  the  flesh 
assumed,  let  him  be  anathema. 

3.  If  anyone  so  separates  the  expressions  of  the  Gospels 

THE   CONSTITUTUM  OF  VIGILIUS,   MAY   14,  533.  321 

and  apostles,  which  refer  to  the  one  Christ,  that  he  introduces 
also  a  separation  of  the  natures,  let  him  be  anathema. 

4.  If    anyone  says  that  the  one  Jesus  Christ,  the  true 
Son  of  God,  and  at  the  same  time  the  true  Son  of  man,  had 
no  knowledge  of  the  future,  and  specially  of  the  last  judg- 
ment, and  knew  only  so  much  of  it  as  the  Godhead,  who  dwelt 
in  Him  as  another,  revealed  thereof,  let  him  be  anathema. 

5.  If  anyone  understands  the  passage,  Heb.  v.  7,  8,  only 
of  Christ  stripped  of  the  Godhead,  .  .  .  and  introduces  two 
Sons,  let  him  be  anathema. 

Finally,  the  Pope  says  he  had  instituted  inquiries  with 
respect  to  the  letter  of  the  venerable  Ibas,  and,  as  he  was  not 
himself  acquainted  with  Greek,  he  had  caused  those  who  were 
about  him  to  look  out  this  subject  in  the  Acts  of  Chalcedon. 
They  had  there  found  the  testimonies  (vota)  of  the  papal 
legates,  of  Anatolius  of  Constantinople  and  Maximus  of 
Antioch,  which  the  Pope  verbally  inserted  (see  vol.  iii.  sec. 
196,  and  above,  sec.  271).  It  was  clear  that  the  legates  of 
the  apostolic  see  regarded  Ibas  as  orthodox  after  the  reading 
of  his  letter ;  that  Anatolius  said :  "  From  all  that  has  been 
read,  the  innocence  of  Ibas  results  "  ;  and  Maximus  :  "  From 
the  letter  read  his  catholic  confession  is  clear."  The  other 
bishops  had  not  only  not  contradicted,  but  evidently  had 
agreed.  They  had  therefore  found  the  confession  of  Ibas 
orthodox  ;  because  in  the  letter  in  question  he  had  commended 
the  union  between  the  Orientals  and  Cyril,  and  had  accepted 
the  confession  of  faith  of  the  union.  The  attacks  on  Cyril, 
which  Ibas  allowed  himself  to  make  in  his  letter,  from  want 
of  complete  knowledge,  were  not  approved  by  the  Fathers  at 
Chalcedon  ;  indeed  they  were  condemned  by  Ibas  himself  upon 
fuller  information,  as  is  shown  by  the  testimony  of  Eunomius 
in  stating  an  historical  fact :  "  Ilia  quae  culpaverat  refutavit." 
The  testimony  of  Juvenal  shows  the  same.  Moreover,  before 
this,  as  is  shown  by  the  sentence  of  judgment  of  Photius  and 
Eustathius,  Ibas  had  quite  publicly  recognised  the  decrees 
of  the  first  Ephesine  Synod,  and  placed  them  beside  those  of 
Nicaea,  and  had  also  had  communion  with  Cyril  after  the 
latter  had  explained  his  anathematisms.  So  long  as  he 
misunderstood  the  propositions  of  Cyril,  he  had  opposed  them 

IV.  21 


in  an  orthodox  sense ;  but  after  better  understanding,  he  had 
himself  accepted  them. 

At  the  second  Synod  of  Ephesus  (the  Robber-Synod)  he 
had  been  wrongly  deposed ;  but  the  Synod  of  Chalcedon  had 
rightly  declared  and  accepted  him  as  orthodox ;  he  had  given 
adequate  satisfaction,  for  his  attacks  on  Cyril,  which  had 
proceeded  from  ignorance.  The  Pope  therefore  declared  that 
the  judgment  of  the  Fathers  at  Chalcedon,  as  in  all  other 
points,  so  in  regard  to  the  letter  of  Ibas,  must  remain 
inviolate.  No  cleric  must  oppose  this  judgment,  or  venture 
to  alter  the  sentence  of  Chalcedon  on  the  letter  of  Ibas  as 
incomplete.  Let  no  one,  however,  suppose  that  this  could 
derogate  from  the  letter  of  Cyril  and  his  anathematisms,  as 
it  was  well  known  that  Ibas,  after  the  explanation  of  the 
words  of  Cyril  which  ensued,  had  maintained  Church  com- 
munion with  him  until  his  death.  Moreover,  no  one  must 
maintain  that  the  papal  legates  at  Chalcedon  (who  led  the 
way  in  the  restoration  of  Ibas  to  his  bishopric)  had 
authority  only  in  points  of  faith,  but  not  in  regard  to  the 
restoration  of  wrongfully  deposed  bishops.  Such  an  opinion 
was  contradicted  by  the  express  words  of  Pope  Leo,  who  had 
learned  and  confirmed  all  that  had  taken  place  at  Chalcedon. 
The  same  Leo  had  also  repeatedly  declared  that  nothing 
was  to  be  altered  in  the  decrees  of  Chalcedon.  So 
Pope  Simplicius,  and  Vigilius  himself,  in  his  letter  to 
Mennas  (i.e.  the  Judicatum),  of  which  five  fragments  were 
communicated  (see  sec.  259).  They  must  also  abide  by  that 
which  was  contained  in  the  testimonies  of  the  bishops  and  of 
the  papal  legates  at  Chalcedon  in  regard  to  the  letter  of  Ibas 
and  his  person,  and  that  must  suffice  for  all  Catholics  which 
that  holy  Synod  had  regarded  as  sufficient,  when  it  declared : 
"  He  shall  only  anathematise  Nestorius  and  his  doctrines." 
The  Constitutum  finally  closes  with  the  words  :  "  We  ordain  and 
decree  that  it  be  permitted  to  no  one  who  stands  in  ecclesi- 
astical order  or  office,  to  write  or  bring  forward,  or  undertake, 
or  teach  anything  contradictory  to  the  contents  of  this 
Constitutum  in  regard  to  the  three  chapters,  or,  after  this 
declaration,  begin  a  new  controversy  about  them.  And  if 
anything  has  already  been  done  or  spoken  in  regard  of  the 

SEVENTH   SESSION,   MAY   26.  323 

three  chapters  in  contradiction  of  this  our  ordinance,  by  any 
one  whomsoever,  this  we  declare  void  by  the  authority  of  the 
apostolic  see." 1 

SEC.  273.  Seventh  Session,  May  26. 

Immediately  after  the  opening  of  the  seventh  session  an 
imperial  commissary  entered,  in  order,  by  his  master's  com- 
mission, to  give  information  respecting  the  conduct  of  Pope 
Vigilius.  The  Paris  codex  places  this  seventh  session  on  the 
3rd  of  June ;  the  manuscript  of  Beauvais,  on  the  contrary, 
as  well  as  that  which  Surius  used,  on  the  26th  of  May ;  and 
the  latter  is  to  be  preferred,  since  the  2nd  of  June  is  given 
in  all  the  MSS.  without  exception  as  the  date  of  the  eighth 
session.  Generally  speaking,  the  manuscripts  in  regard  to  the 
Acts  of  the  seventh  session  differ  more  widely  than  at  any  other 
place.  The  Paris  codex,  which  we  follow,  is  again  much  more 
complete  than  the  two  others,  which  agree  with  one  another.2 

All  three  codices  relate  that  after  the  reading  of  the 
minutes  of  the  earlier  sessions,  and  before  the  Synod  passed 
to  any  new  business,  the  quaestor  of  the  imperial  palace, 
Constantine,  entered,  and  spoke  substantially  as  follows : 3 
"  You  know  how  much  the  Emperor  has  always  thought  of 
having  the  doubts  respecting  the  three  chapters  resolved. 
For  this  reason  also  he  has  required  that  Vigilius  should 
come  to  you,  and  draw  up  a  decree  on  this  matter  in  accord- 
ance with  the  orthodox  faith.  Although,  therefore,  Vigilius 
has  already  frequently  condemned  the  three  chapters  in 
writing,  and  has  done  this  also  by  word  of  mouth  in  the 
presence  of  the  Emperor,  imperial  ministers,  and  many  mem- 
bers of  this  Council  (sec.  259),  and  has  smitten  with 
anathema  all  who  defend  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  and  the 
letter  ascribed  to  Ibas,  and  the  writings  of  Theodoret  against 
Cyril,  etc.,  yet  he  has  refused  to  do  this  in  communion  with 

'Gamier  (l.c.  p.  555)  says  of  this  Constitutum,  it  is  "mirabili  quadam 
ratione  compositum,  ut  nihil  seculo  sexto  melius,  et  forte  par  edituni 

2  The  Balleriui  (in  Noris,  Opp.  t.  iv.  p.  1037)  raise  objections  which  do  not 
seem  sufficient  against  the  additional  matter  of  the  Paris  codex. 

3  In  regard  to  his  sj)eech  the  three  codices  differ  widely. 


you  and  your  Synod.  .  .  .  Yesterday  Vigilius  sent  Servus- 
Dei,  a  subdeacon  of  the  Eoman  Church,  and  invited  Belisarius, 
Cethegus,  and  some  other  high  officers  of  State,  as  well  as 
Bishops  Theodore  Ascidas,  Benignus,  and  Phocas,  to  come  to 
him,  as  he  wished  to  give  through  them  an  answer  to  the 
Emperor.  They  came,  but  speedily  returned,  and  informed 
the  Emperor  that  Vigilius  wished  to  give  them  a  document 
just  prepared  by  him,  in  order  that  they  might  read  it,  and 
then  communicate  it  to  the  Emperor.  As  they  hesitated 
to  receive  it,  the  papal  subdeacon  Servus-Dei  was  now 
standing  at  the  door  of  the  Emperor,  in  order  to  convey  that 
document  to  him.  The  Emperor,  however,  did  not  admit  the 
subdeacon,  but  sent  him,  by  his  minister,  the  following 
answer  to  Vigilius :  '  I  invited  you  to  take  measures  in  com- 
mon with  the  other  patriarchs  and  bishops  with  respect  to 
the  three  chapters.  You  have  refused  this,  and  now  wish, 
for  yourself  alone,  to  give  a  judgment  in  writing  (in  the 
Constitutum).  But,  if  you  have,  in  this,  condemned  the 
three  chapters,  I  have  no  need  of  this  new  document,  for  I 
have  from  you  many  others  of  the  same  content.  If,  how- 
ever, you  have,  in  this  new  document,  departed  from  your 
earlier  declarations,  you  have  condemned  yourself.'  This 
answer  the  Emperor  gave  only  by  word  of  mouth.  Before, 
however,  you  bring  the  matter  in  regard  to  the  three  chapters 
quite  to  an  end,  the  Emperor  wishes  to  communicate  to  you 
some  more  documents,  namely,  two  letters  from  Vigilius,  an 
autograph  to  the  Emperor,  and  one  written  by  another  hand, 
but  signed  by  him,  to  the  Empress ;  further,  the  edict  in 
which  Vigilius  deposed  the  Eoman  deacons  Eusticus  and 
Sebastian,  etc.,  his  letters  to  the  Scythian  Bishop  Valerian, 
and  to  Bishop  Aurelian  of  Aries,  and  finally  that  written 
promise,  in  which  he  had  declared  on  oath  that  he  would 
anathematise  the  three  chapters  if  his  Judicatum  were  given 
back  to  him,  which  was  necessary  (sees.  259,  260,  and  261). 
To-day  the  Emperor  allowed  the  Western  bishops  and  the 
clergy  of  Vigilius,  together  with  Bishop  Vincentius  of  Clau- 
diopolis,  to  meet  together,  and  sent  to  them  the  patrician 
Cethegus,  myself,  and  others.  We  placed  before  them  that 
written  promise  of  Vigilius,  just  named,  to  which  the  sub- 

SEVENTH   SESSION,   MAY   26.  325 

deacon  Servus-Dei  and  Bishop  Vincentius  had  affixed  their 
seal.  This  seal  was  broken,  the  document  read,  and  Vin- 
centius declared  that  he  had  then  been  still  subdeacon  in  the 
Eoman  Church,  and  in  this  capacity  had  taken  part  in  the 
affair. — Further,  by  commission  of  the  Emperor,  I  must 
inform  you  that  Vigilius  and  his  clergy  often  said  to  the 
Emperor,  that  he  must  maintain  the  state  of  the  Church  as 
it  was  in  the  time  of  his  father  (adoptive  father,  Justin  I.). 
In  order,  therefore,  to  show  that  his  father  had  the  same 
opinion  with  regard  to  the  three  chapters,  the  Emperor  com- 
municates to  you  his  letter  to  Hypatius,  the  Magister  militum 
in  the  East.  This  letter  was  occasioned  by  an  incident  in 
the  city  of  Cyrus,  where  Theodoret's  likeness  was  carried 
round  in  triumph,  and  an  ecclesiastical  festival  was  celebrated 
in  honour  of  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  Diodorus  of  Tarsus, 
Theodoret,  and  Nestorius,  which  led  to  the  deposition  of 
Sergius  who  was  bishop  there.  All  these  documents  it  was 
necessary  to  bring  to  the  knowledge  of  the  Synod." l 

The  bishops  naturally  agreed  to  this,  and  had  read : — 

1.  The  letter  of  Vigilius  to  the  Emperor  (sees.  259  and 

2.  His  letter  to  the  Empress  Theodora  (ibid.). 

3.  The  edict  in  which  the  Pope  pronounced  the  deposi- 
tion of  Eusticus,  Sebastian,  and  other  Eoman  clerics  (sec.  260). 

4.  The    letter    of    the    Pope    to    the    Scythian    Bishop 
Valeutinian  (sec.  260). 

5.  The  letter  to  Bishop  Aurelian  of  Aries  (ibid.). 

6.  The    document  in  which  the  Pope  asserted  on  oath 
that  he  was  willing  bo  anathematise  the  three  chapters   on 
receiving  back  the  Judicatum  (sec.  261);  and  finally — 

7.  The  letter  of  the  Emperor  Justin  I.  to  Hypatius  on 
account  of  the  incident  in  the  city  of  Cyrus,  August  7,  520. 

The  Synod  declared  that  from  this  the  zeal  of  the 
Emperor  for  the  true  faith  was  clearly  to  be  recognised,  and 
promised  daily  to  pray  for  him.  As,  however,  they  wanted  to 
close  the  session,  the  quaestor  Constantino  presented  one  other 
letter  of  the  Emperor,  containing  the  command,  that  the  name 
of  Vigilius  should  be  struck  from  all  the  diptychs,  because, 

1  Mansi,  t.  ix.  pp.  346-351  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  pp.  171-175. 


through  his  defence  of  the  three  chapters,  he  had  participated  in 
the  impiety  of  Nestorius  and  Theodore.  The  Emperor,  however, 
did  not  mean  by  this  entirely  to  break  off'  communion  with 
the  apostolic  see,  neither  did  he  wish  the  Synod  to  do  so.1 
The  minutes  inform  us  that  this  letter  was  read,  and  approved 
by  the  Synod  with  the  words :  "  This  is  in  accordance  with 
the  efforts  of  the  Emperor  for  the  unity  of  the  Churches,  and 
we  will  preserve  unity  with  the  apostolic  see  of  Old  Borne." 

It  is  remarkable  that  this  letter  of  the  Emperor  is,  in 
the  Acts,  dated  July  14,  whilst  the  seventh  session  took 
place  on  the  26th  of  May.  Kemi  Ceillier  and  Du  Pin 
inferred  from  this,  that  it  could  not  have  been  read  at  the 
seventh  session,  nor  even  at  the  eighth  and  last ; 2  but  the 
synodal  minutes,  as  they  stand  in  the  Paris  codex,  places  the 
reading  of  this  letter  so  decidedly  and  with  such  details  at 
the  seventh  session,  that  we  prefer  to  believe  that  the 
imperial  edict  was  then,  indeed,  communicated  to  the  Synod, 
but  that  it  was  not  until  the  14th  of  July  that  it  was 
publicly  posted  up,  and  therefore  it  bears  the  date.3 

SEC.  274.  Eighth  and  last  Session,  June  2,  553. 

It  had  already  been  determined,  at  the  end  of  the 
previous  session,  at  once  to  publish  the  final  judgment  on  the 
matter  of  the  three  chapters,  and  the  deacon  and  notary 
Collonymus  therefore  read  immediately  the  uncommonly 
copious  sketch  of  the  synodal  sentence  which  had  been  pre- 
pared beforehand,  probably  by  Eutychius  and  Ascidas.  Its 
beginning  is  still  extant  in  Greek,  the  whole,  however,  only 
in  the  old  Latin  translation ;  and  the  substance  of  it  is  as 
follows :  "  Because  we  saw  that  the  adherents  of  Nestorius 
were  making  the  effort  by  means  of  the  impious  (impium  = 

1  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  366  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  186. 

2  Remi   Ceillier,  Hist,    des  auteurs  sacrts,  etc.,  t.  xvi.  p.   763;   Du  Pin, 
Nouvelle  Biblioth&qv£  des  auteurt  ecdteiastiques,  t.  v.  p.  203. 

3  Walch  passes  over  this  difficulty  entirely,  and  maintains  (Bd.  viii.  S.  239) 
wrongly  :  "In  all  these  documents  I  find  110  difference  between  the  manuscripts, 
whilst,  however,  in  fact,  only  the  Paris  codex  has  this  imperial  letter  and  the 
document  No.  6  mentioned  above.     The  Ballerini  (in  Noris,  Opp.  t.  iv.  p.  1036) 
hold  the  imperial  letter  to  be  spurious  on  insufficient  grounds  (the  date). 

EIGHTH   AND  LAST  SESSION,  JUNE,  2,  553.  327 

heretical)  Theodore,  who  was   bishop  of  Mopsuestia,  and  his 
writings,  moreover  by  that  which  Theodoret  impiously  wrote, 
and  by  the  shameful  letter  which  is  said  to  have  been  written 
by  Ibas  to  the  Persian  Maris,  to  impose  their  impiety  upon 
the  Church  of  God,  therefore  have  we  risen  up  to  prevent 
this,  and  have  come  together,  by  the  will  of  God  and  at   the 
command  of  the  pious  Emperor,  in  this  city  of  the  residence. 
And,  as  Vigilius  is  also   residing  here,  and  has  often   con- 
demned the  three  chapters,  orally  and  in  writing,  and  has 
agreed   in   writing   to   take  part   in   a   Synod,  and  to   take 
counsel  in  common  with  us  on  the  three  chapters  .  .  .  the 
Emperor  exhorted  both  him  and  us  to  come  together,  and  we 
requested  him  to  fulfil  his  promise,  and  drew  his  attention  to 
the  apostolic  Council  and  the  old  Synods.  .  .  .  We  and  the 
Emperor  sent  frequently  to  him ;  but  he  declared  that  he 
wished  to  give  his  view  of  the  three  chapters  in  writing  for 
himself  alone.     After  we  received  this  answer,  we  remem- 
bered the  word  of  the  apostle :  '  Every  one  of  us  shall  give 
account  of  himself  unto  God'  (Rom.  xiv.  12),  assembled  at 
the  Synod,  and  first  of  all  made  confession  of  the  orthodox 
faith  .  .  .  united  with  an   anathema  on  all  who  had  been 
condemned   by  the   four   previous   holy   Synods.     We   then 
began  the  inquiry  as  to  the  three   chapters,  and   first   on 
Theodore   of   Mopsuestia.     His   blasphemies   were    produced 
from  his  books  .  .  .  and  we  were  so  angered  thereby,  that 
we  immediately  anathematised  Theodore  by  acclamation.  .  .  . 
Further,  there  were    read    utterances  of    the  holy  Fathers, 
who  opposed  Theodore,  and  imperial  laws,  etc.  (at  the  fifth 
session),  and  the  questions  examined,  whether  heretics  could 
still  be  anathematised  after   their  death,  and  whether  Cyril 
and  Proclus  really  spoke  in  favour  of  Theodore  (both  points 
were  here,  in  the  sentence,  copiously  discussed).     Then  there 
was  read  a  little   from   the   writings   of   Theodoret   against 
Cyril,  against  the  first  Ephesine  Synod,  and  the  true  faith, 
also  (at  the  sixth  session)  the  supposed  letter  of  Ibas  was 
read  .  .  .  and  it  was  examined  whether  the  latter  had  been 
accepted  by  the  Council  of  Chalcedon.     In  order  to  put  aside 
all  objections,  we  also  caused  to  be  read  utterances  of  S.  Cyril 
and  Pope  Leo  (the  Epistola  dogmatica),  and  also  presented  the 


declaration  of  faith  of  Chalcedon,  in  order  to  show  that  the 
letter  of  Ibas  was  in  entire  contradiction  to  this.  .  .  .  The 
testimonies  (vota)  of  some  few  bishops  at  Chalcedon,  however, 
which  seem  favourable  to  the  letter,  cannot  be  adduced  by 
the  opposition,  since  all  the  members  of  that  Synod  demanded 
of  Ibas  an  anathema  upon  Nestorius  and  his  doctrines,  also 
on  the  contents  of  that  letter.  .  .  .  We  now  condemn  and 
anathematise,  with  all  other  heretics  who  have  been  con- 
demned and  anathematised  at  the  four  holy  Synods,  and  by 
the  holy  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church,  also  Theodore, 
formerly  bishop  of  Mopsuestia,  and  his  impious  writings, 
likewise  that  which  Theodoret  wrote  impie  against  the  true 
faith,  and  against  the  twelve  anathematisms  of  Cyril,  against 
the  first  Synod  of  Ephesus,  and  in  defence  of  Theodore  and 
Nestorius.  Besides  this,  we  anathematise  the  impious  letter 
which  Ibas  is  said  to  have  written  to  Maris,  in  which  it  is 
denied  that  God  the  Word  became  flesh  and  man  of  the  holy 
Godbearer  and  perpetual  Virgin  Mary.  We  also  anathe- 
matise the  three  chapters  named,  i.e.  the  impious  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia  with  his  mischievous  books,  and  what  Theodoret 
impie  wrote,  and  the  impious  letter  which  Ibas  is  said  to  have 
composed,  together  with  their  defenders  who  declare  the 
three  chapters  to  be  right,  and  who  sought  or  shall  seek 
to  protect  their  impiety  by  the  names  of  holy  Fathers  or 
of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon.  Finally,  we  find  it  necessary 
to  put  together  the  doctrine  of  truth  and  the  condemnation 
of  heretics  and  their  impiety  into  some  chapters  (anathe- 

As  these  fourteen  anathematisms,  besides  the  old  trans- 
lation, are  still  extant  in  the  Greek  original  text,  we  give  the 
latter  with  a  German  (English)  translation  added,  and  remark 
at  the  same  time  that  these  anathematisms  are,  to  a  large 
extent,  verbally  identical  with  those  contained  in  the 
Emperor's  6fj,o\oyia  2  (sec.  263). 

1  Mansi,  t.  ix.  pp.  367-375  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  pp.  187-194. 

2  They  have    several    improvements    over    the    earlier    statements,    how- 
ever,  as  is  shown   by  Gamier,   who   highly  commends  them,   in   his   Diss. 
de  T.  Synodo,   in   Schulze's  edition  of  the   works  of  Theodoret,  Bd.    v.   S. 

EIGHTH   AND  LAST  SESSION,  JUNE  2,  553.  329 


Ei  ri<f  ov%  o/toXo7et  TraTjOo?  /cat  vlov  /cat  07401;  rrvevparos 
p.iav  (j)V(7ti>,  rjroi  ovaidv,  piav  re  Svvafjiiv  /cat  e^ovcriav, 
rpidSa  6/jioovffiov,  fj,iav  deorrjra  ev  rpurlv  vrroo~rdcreo~iv  tfyovv 
7r/Do<7co7rot9  TTpoa-KvvovfjLevTjv'  o  roiovros  dvdOe^a  ecrrw  et9 
•yap  #eo9  teal  rrarrjp,  e'£  ov  ra  rrdvra,  /cat  el?  /cvpto9  'I^aoO? 
Xpicnos,  Si  ov  ra  Travra,  KOI  ev  Trvev^a  ayiov,  ev  w  ra  Trdvra. 

If  anyone  does  not  confess  that  the  Father,  the  Son,  and 
the  Holy  Ghost  have  one  nature  or  essence,  one  power  and 
might ;  (or  does  not  confess)  the  co-essential  [consubstantial] 
Trinity,  one  Godhead  in  three  hypostases  or  persons  wor- 
shipped, let  him  be  anathema.  For  there  is  one  God  and 
Father  of  whom  are  all  things,  and  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
through  whom  are  all  things,  and  one  Holy  Spirit  in  whom 
are  all  things. 


Ei  rt?  ov%  oyttoXoyet,  rov  6eov  \6<yov  elvai  TO?  Bvo  yevvijffeis,  rrjv 
re  Trpo  aiwvcov  e/c  rov  rrarpos,  d%p6vQ)<>  /cat  da'Wfidro)^,  rr)v  re  eV 
IfYaTHV  rwv  Tjpepwv,  rov  avrov  fcare\@6vro$  etc  rwv  ovpavwv, 
/cat  <rapKodevro<s  etc  rrj<;  d<yia<;  €vS6!;ov  OeoroKov  /cat  denrapdevov 
Maplas,  /cat  ryevvrjOevros  e£  avrr)<?  6  roiovros  avdOepu  ecrrat. 

If  anyone  does  not  confess  that  there  are  two  births  of 
God  the  Word,  the  one  from  eternity  of  the  Father,  out  of 
time  and  incorporeal,  and  the  other  in  the  last  days,  in  that 
He  came  down  from  heaven,  and  was  made  flesh  of  the  holy, 
glorious  Godbearer,  and  ever- virgin  Mary,  and  was  born  of  her, 
let  him  be  anathema. 


Ei  Tt?  \eyei,  a\\ov  elvai  rov  deov  \6yov l  rov  dav/jM- 
rovpyi)<rdvra,  /cat  a\\ov  rov  Xpiarbv  rov  rradovra,  rj  rbv  6ebv 
\6yov  o-vvelvai  \eyei  rut  Xpiaraj  yevofievy  e/c  yvvaiKOf,  TJ  ev 
avrw  elvai  &>?  a\\ov  ev  a\\<p,  a\\'  ov%  eva  /cat  rov  avrbv 
Kvpiov  TH^WV  'Irj&ovv  Xpiarbv,  rbv  rov  6eov  \6yov,  aapicwdevra 
/cat  evavdpwrrrjfravra,  /cat  rov  avrov  ra  re  davpara  /cat  ra 
rrddr),  arrep  e/coi/<rt&)9  vTre/jieive  aapici  o  rotoOro?  dvddefia  etrrw. 

1  In  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  337,  by  a  typographical  error,  x«y«»  is  wanting. 


If  anyone  says  that  the  Word  of  God  who  worked  miracles 
is  one,  and  that  Christ  who  suffered  is  another ;  or  says  that 
God  the  Word  is  become  the  same  as  the  Christ  who  was 
born  of  a  woman,  or  is  in  Him  as  one  is  in  another,  and  that 
it  is  not  one  and  the  same  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Word 
of  God,  who  became  flesh  and  man,  and  that  the  miracles 
which  He  wrought  and  the  sufferings  which  He  voluntarily 
endured  in  the  flesh  are  not  His,  let  him  be  anathema. 


Ei  rt<?  \eyei,  Kara  %dptv,  77  Kara  evepyeiav,  17  Kara  lo~ori- 
fiiav,  i)  Kara  avdevriav,  r)  dva<f>opdv,  rj  o-^ecrtv,  r)  SvvafALV,  rrjv 
rov  6eov  \6yov  77/305  avOpwirov  yeyevfjcrdai,  r}  Kara, 
iav,  <as  ape&Oevros  rov  Otov  \6yov  rov  dvQputTrov,  airo 
rov  ev  Kal  /raXw?  S6£at  avra>  Trepl  avrov,  /ea#&>5  0eo8a>po5 
/j,aiv6fjb€vo<f  Xeyefc,  r)  Kara  Ofj,(avvp,iav,  tcaff1  r)v  ol  Necrroptavol 
rov  Oebv  \6jov  'Irj&ovv  (perhaps  vlov)  Kal  Xpi(rrov  KaXovvres, 
Kal  TOP  avdpwnov  /ce^6>pKT/u.ez/&><?  Xpurrbv  Kal  vibv  6vo/j,d^ovre<;, 
Kal  Bvo  TTpocrwira  irpofyav&s  \eyovres,  Kara  fjuovrjv  rrjv  Trpoo~- 
rjjopuiv  Kal  ri/Mrjv  Kal  d£iav  Kal  TrpocrKVvrjaiv,  Kal  ev  TrpoaajTrov 
Kal  eva  Xpttrrbv  VTroKplvovrai  \jyw  aXX'  ov%  6fjLO\o<yel  rrjv 
€vco(7iv  rov  Oeov  \6jov  TT/OO?  <rdpKa  epL^rv^u>p,evr)V  tyvxfi  \oyiKrj 
Kal  voepa,  Kara  avvOecnv  fyyovv  KaO'  vTrocrraa'iv  ryeyeirrja-dai, 
Kadaxi  ol  ayioi  Trarepe?  e8lSa£av  Kal  Sia  rovro  fiiav  avrov  rtjv 
vTroo~ra(Tiv,  o  eo~riv  o  Kvpios  'I^croO?  Xpicrros,  et?  r?}?  dyuis 
o  rotoOro?  dvdOepa  eara)'  Tro\vrporir(f><j  jap  voov/j,evr)<i 

s,  ol  fjiev  rf)  ao-e/Se/a  'ATro\\ivapiov  Kal 
dKo\ovdovvres,  rut  d^avia/jLO)  rwv  avve\6ovrwv 
rrjv  Kara  crv<~/^vcriv  rrjv  evao-iv  Trpecrflevovo-iv  ol  8e  ra  Geo- 
Scopov  Kal  Nea-roplov  typovovvres,  rp  Statpetret  %atpovr€<s, 
aysri,K.r)v  rijv  evwcrw  eTreKTayovaw  17  [tevrot  dyia  rov  Oeov 
€KK\r)<ria  e/care'pa?  atpeo-eeo?  rr)v  dcrefieiav  a7roj8a\Xo/Liei/77,  ryv 
evwcriv  rov  deov  7rpo<?  rrjv  a-dpxa  Kara  crvvOeo'iv  Ofj,o\oyei,  OTrep 
eo-ri  Ka0'  V7r6o-rao-iv  f)  yap  Kara  <rvvdecnv  opoXoyei,  OTrep 
ecrrl  ica&  vTroo'rao'iv'  rj  yap  Kara  <rvv6ecriv  e^wtrt?  eVt  rov 
Kara  Xpurrov  ftv&rrjpiov,  ov  /JLOVOV  affvy^yra  ra  o~vve\Qbvra 
&ia<f>v\drrei,  aXA,'  ouSe  §Laipeaiv  eTn^e^erai. 

If  anyone  says  that  the  union  of    God  the  Word  with 

EIGHTH   AND   LAST  SESSION,  JUNE  2,  553.  331 

man  has  taken  place  only  by  grace,  or  by  operation,  or  by 
equality  of  honour  and  distinction,  or  by  a  carrying  up  and 
condition  (see  No.  6),  or  by  power,  or  by  good  pleasure,  as 
though  God  the  Word  were  pleased  with  man,  from  its 
seeming  well  and  good  to  Him  concerning  him  —  as  the 
raving  Theodore  says  ;  or  that  it  has  taken  place  through  the 
sameness  of  name,  according  to  which  the  Nestorians  call 
God  the  Word  Jesus  (Son)  and  Christ,  and  so  name  the  man 
separately  Christ  and  Son,  and  so  clearly  speak  of  two 
persons,  and  hypocritically  speak  of  one  person  and  of  one 
Christ  only  according  to  designation,  and  honour,  and  dignity, 
and  worship.  But  if  anyone  does  not  confess  that  the 
union  of  God  the  Word  with  the  flesh  enlivened  by  a 
reasonable  and  thinking  soul,  according  to  synthesis  (com- 
bination), or  according  to  hypostasis,  as  the  holy  Fathers  said, 
and  that  therefore  there  is  only  one  person,  namely,  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  one  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  let  him  be  anathema. 
As,  however,  the  word  union  (eWcrt?)  is  taken  in  different 
senses,  those  who  follow  the  impiety  of  Apollinaris  and 
Eutyches,  assuming  a  disappearance  of  the  natures  which 
come  together,  teach  a  union  by  confusion  ;  whilst  the 
adherents  of  Nestorius  and  Theodore,  rejoicing  in  the 
separation,  introduce  a  merely  relative  union.  The  Holy 
Church  of  God,  on  the  contrary,  rejecting  the  impiety  of 
both  heresies,  confesses  the  union  of  God  the  Word  with  the 
flesh  by  a  combination,  i.e.  personally.  For  the  union  by 
combination  (synthesis)  not  only  preserves,  in  regard  to  the 
mystery  of  Christ,  that  which  has  come  together  (the  two 
natures)  unconfused,  but  allows  of  no  separation  (of  the 


El  T4?  rrjv  fjiiav  VTroaraGiv  rov  Kvpiov  rj^wv  'Ir)<rov  Xpi<r- 


<Tr)fjt,affiav,   KOI    8ia    rovro    ela'dyeiv    eTTi^eipei    eni    TOV    Kara 

Xpiarbv    fivcmypiov   Bvo   uTrocrTacrei?   ijrot   8vo   Trpocrwira,   KOI 

rwv    Trap     dvrov    el&ayofjievtav    8vo   rrpoawTrtav 

\eyei  Kara  d£iav  icai  Tifj.r)v  Kai  TTpotr/cuvrjcriv,  KaBdirep 

KOL  Nea-ropios  fUUVOftoroi    ffvveypd-^ravro'  teal  crvKo^avTt-i  rrjv 


dyiav  ev  Xa\Kr)&6vi  (rvvoSov,  &>?  Kara  ravrrjv  rrjv  dtre^rj 
evvoiav  ^prja-afievijv  ro3  rr)?  /Lu'as"  inroffrdaeu)^  prj^an,  d\\a 
fir)  ofMoXoyei  rov  rov  0eov  \6yov  (rapid  naff  vTroaratriv 
evcadrjvai,  /cat  Bia  rovro  /j,iav  avrov  rrjv  viroa-raa-iv,  rjroi 
ev  Trpoa-arrrov,  ovra)<}  re  ical  rrjv  ayiav  ev  Xa\Kt}86vi 
(rvvoSov  fjiiav  vTToa-raffiv  rov  Kvpiov  rjfiwv  'Irja-ov  Xpta-rov 
6/j,o\oyija-ai'  o  rotovros  avdOepa  e<rr<w.  Ovre  jap  Trpocr- 
Trpoa&TTov  ijyovv  VTroGrdaew?  eTreSe^aro  f/  dyia 
as,  KOI  a-apKQ)0evro<;  rov  evbs  r^9  ayias,  rpiaSos  6eov 

If  anyone  so  understands  the  expression,  one  Hypostasis 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  thereby  is  meant  the 
designation  of  the  union  of  many  hypostases,  and  hereby 
undertakes  to  introduce  into  the  mystery  of  Christ  two 
hypostases  or  two  persons,  and  often  having  introduced  two 
persons,  speaks  of  one  person  according  to  dignity,  honour, 
and  worship,  as  Theodore  and  Nestorius  in  their  madness 
maintained  ;  and  if  any  one  slanders  the  holy  Synod  in 
Chalcedon,  as  though  it  had  used  the  expression,  one  hypos- 
tasis,  in  this  impious  sense,  and  does  not  confess  that  the 
Word  of  God  was  personally  united  with  flesh,  and  that 
therefore  there  is  only  one  hypostasis  or  one  person,  as  also 
the  holy  Synod  in  Chalcedon  confessed  one  hypostasis  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  —  let  him  be  anathema  !  For  the  holy 
Trinity,  when  God  the  Word,  one  of  the  holy  Trinity  was 
incarnate,  did  not  suffer  the  addition  of  a  person  or 


Ei  T£<?  icara'Xpria'riKws,  aXX'  OVK  a\rj0M<j,  OeoroKov  \eyei 
rrjv  dyiav  evSo^ov  denrapOevov  Mapiav,  rj  Kara  dvafyopav, 
a><>  dv6p<i)7rov  TJn\ov  <yevwr)@evro<>,  aXV  ou^i  rov  Oeov  \6yov 
o-apKwdevros  (xal  rfjs)  l  e£  avrrjs,  dvd<f>epo/J,evr)<;  8e  (/car' 
eiceivov)  TT}?  rov  dvOpwirov  yevvrfcrews  eirl  rov  Oebv  \6yov,  to? 
(Tvvovra  TW  dvOpayiro)  yevofievy  Kal  <rvKO<f)avrel  rrjv  dyiav  ev 

1  Here  and  some  words  lower  down  the  text  is  corrupt.  The  old  Latin 
translator  read  *«/  yt»»v0ii>ri>s  i%  alrnt,  for  he  gives:  "Et  nato  ex  ipsa." 
Instead  of  the  following  x«r'  Us/vow,  he  has:  "  Sicut  illi  (sc.  Theodore  and 
Nestorius)  dicunt." 

EIGHTH  AND  LAST  SESSION,  JUNE   2,  553.  333 

Xa\Kr)86vi,  (rvvo&ov,  o>9  Kara  ravrrjv  rrjv  d<ref3f)  emvorjOelaav 
rrapa  SeoStapov  evvoiav  deoroKov  rrjv  rrapdevov  elrcovaav'  rj 
et  T4<?  avOpwrcoroKov  avrrjv  KaXel,  rj  XpicrroroKov,  co?  rov 
Xpiarov  /j,rj  oWo<?  6eov,  a\Xa  p,rj  Kvputq  KOL  icar  d\ij6eiav 
Qeoroicov  avrrfv  6/40X076?,  Bia  TO  rov  rrpo  rwv  aiottvcw  e/c  rov 
Trarpos  yevvrjOevra  Oeov  Xoyov  eV  €<r%dra>v  rwv  rjfjiepwv  ef; 
avrr}<f  (rapKa>0f)vai,,  ovrco  re  eucre/3w?  ical  rffv  dfylav  ev  Xa\fcr)- 
Sovi  crvvoBov  OeoroKov  avrrjv  6fjio\o<yri<rat'  o  roiovros  dj/ddefia 

If  anyone  says  that  the  holy,  glorious,  ever-virgin  Mary 
is  called  Godbearer  by  abuse  and  not  truly,  or  by  analogy, 
as  though  a  mere  man  were  born  of  her,  and  not  as  though 
God  the  Word  were  incarnate  of  her,  but  that  the  birth  of  a 
man  were  connected  with  God  the  Word,  because  HE  was 
united  with  the  man  born  ;  and  if  anyone  slanders  the  holy 
Synod  of  Chalcedon,  as  though,  in  accordance  with  this 
impious  opinion  held  by  Theodore,  it  called  the  virgin  God- 
bearer  ;  or,  if  anyone  calls  her  manbearer  or  Christbearer, 
as  though  Christ  were  not  God,  and  does  not  confess  her  as 
Godbearer,  in  the  proper  sense  and  in  truth,  because  God 
the  Word,  who  was  begotten  of  the  Father  before  all  worlds, 
was  incarnate  of  her  in  the  last  days  ;  and  (does  not  confess) 
that  in  this  pious  sense  the  holy  Synod  of  Chalcedon  con- 
fessed her  to  be  Godbearer,  —  let  him  be  anathema. 


Ei  rt?  ev  Svo  <f>v(T€fft  \eywv,  pr)  to?  ev  Oeorrjn  icai  avdpta- 
rov  eva  tcvpiov  ^fiwv  'Ir/a-ovv  Xpicrrbv  yvmpi^ea-Bai, 
ofjLo\oyel,  'iva  Sia  rovrov  (TTjf^dvr)  rrjv  Bia<f)opav  rwv  <f>v<reti)v, 
e£  <ui>  da-wyxvrax;  rj  a<J)paa-ro<;  evcoaK;  yeyovev,  ovre  rov  \6yov 
et?  rrjv  TT)S  aap/co<t  per  cm 'onjOevTO^  <J)vcriv,  ovre  rr)<;  capicos 
7T/309  rov  \oyov  (frvcriv  fi.era%(i)p'r)(rdo~Ti<})  —  fj,evei  jap  exdrepov 
oirep  ea-rl  rfj  <f>vaei,  KOI  yevofjuevv)?  rijs  evcoo-ew?  icad'  vrcoa- 
raaiv,  — l  aXX'  errl  Siaipeaei  rfj  dva  /ze'po?  rr)v  roiavrrjv 
\a/j,/3dvet  (jxavrjv  eVt  roO  Kara  Xpta-rov  fiva-rijpiov,  rj  rov 

1  The  text  in  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  381,  is  in  this  passage  corrupt.  I  follow 
Hardouin  and  the  text,  as  it  is  repeated  in  the  Acts  of  the  sixth  (Ecumenical 
Council.  In  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  402  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  pp.  207  and  1091. 


rwv  (f>v(rea>v  ofjioXoyo^v  €7rl  rov  avrov  evbs  Kvpiov 
'Iqcrov  rov  Oeov  \6yov  aapKwdevros,  JJLTJ  rfj  Oewpia  fjiovp 
rrjv  Sict(f)opav  rovrwv  Xafiftdvei,  e£  wv  Kal  trvvereOrj,  OVK 
dvaipovfievrjv  Bid  rrjv  evoxriv,  —  etV  <yap  e£  dpfyolv,  Kal  8t' 
evb$  dfMporepa  —  a\V  eVt  rovro)  Ke^prjrai  ru>  dpiBrjQ),  co? 
Ke%(0pi<r/j,eva<;  ftal  iSiovTroo-rdTovs  e%ei  TO?  <f>v<r€LS'  6  TOIOVTOS 

If  anyone,  speaking  of  the  two  natures  (see  vol.  in.  sec.  173), 
does  not  confess  that  he  acknowledges  in  the  Godhead  and  man- 
hood the  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  so  that  by  this  he  signifies  the 
difference  of  natures,  of  which  the  unspeakable  union  takes 
place  without  confusion,  without  the  nature  of  the  Word 
being  changed  into  that  of  the  flesh,  nor  that  of  the  flesh  into 
the  nature  of  the  Word  —  for  each  remains  what  it  was  in 
nature  after  the  personal  union  has  taken  place  —  or  who 
takes  that  expression  in  reference  to  the  mystery  of  Christ 
in  the  sense  of  a  separation  into  parts,  or,  confessing  the  two 
natures  in  relation  to  the  one  Lord  Jesus,  the  incarnate  Word 
of  God,  takes  the  difference  of  these  of  which  HE  was  composed, 
but  which  is  not  destroyed  by  the  union  —  for  HE  is  one  of 
both,  and  through  one  both  —  takes  this  difference  not  as  an 
abstraction,  but  uses  the  duality  in  order  to  separate  the 
natures,  and  to  make  them  separate  persons  (hypostases), 
—  let  him  be  anathema. 


El  -m  CK  Bvo  (pvaecav,  QeoTrjTos  Kal 
opoXo'ywv  rrjv  evaxnv  yeyevrjcrdat,  rj  y^'iav  <f>vcriv  rov  Oeov 
\6<yov  (recrapKWfjievTjv  A.ey&Ji',  jj,r)  ovrcos  avrd  \a/jL^dvp, 
KaOaTrep  Kal  ol  ayiot  Trdrepes  €&i8al;av,  on  €K  rfjs  Betas 
<f>vcrea)<;  Kal  rfjs  dvdpwirwrjs,  rfjs  e^oxreto?  /ca0'  vTroa-racriv 
,  e?5  Xpierro?  aTrereXecr^T;,  aXX,'  e/c  rwv  TOIOVTWV 
jjiiav  <f>vcriv  ijroi  ovcrtav,  Oeorijros  Kal  crapKos  rov 
Xpio-rov  elffdyeiv  eVt^ei/oet'  o  rotoOro?  dvdOefia  earw.  Kad* 
vTroarao'iv  yap  ^yovres  rov  fiovoyewfj  \6yov  T)v5xr6ai,  OVK 
dvd%v<rtv  rwa  rrjv  et?  a\\7;Xoi»5  rwv  (frixrecov  Tr 
v<Ti]s  8e  fid\\ov  eKarepas,  OTrep  eo~rlv, 
i  voov/J,€V  rov  \6<yov.  810  Kal  el?  eanv  o  Xpicrrbs,  ^€09 

EIGHTH  AND  LAST   SESSION,  JUNE  2,  553.  335 

Kal  dv6poiTro<i,  6  aurcx?  oftooycrto?  TO)  jrarpl  Kara  rrjv  Qeoryra, 
teal  onoovo-tos  6  auros*  Kara  rrjv  dvdpo)7r6rtjra.  eTrwn/9 
yap  Kal  TOW  ava  /xepo?  Biaipovvras  77x04  refivovras,  Kal  TOUS 
o-try^eovTa?  TO  TT)?  6eias  olxovCfjUd^  pvo-njpiov  rov  Xpio-rov, 
('nrocrrp€<f)erai  Kal  dvaOefiarifa  rj  rov  6eov  eKKKrjo-ia. 

If  anyone  does  not  take  the  expressions,  of  two  natures, 
the  Godhead  and  the  manhood,  the  union  took  place,  or,  the 
one  incarnate  nature  of  the  Word,  as  the  holy  Fathers  taught, 
that  from  the  divine  nature  and  the  human,  personal  union 
having  taken  place,  one  Christ  was  constituted,  but  endeavours, 
by  such  expressions,  to  bring  in  one  nature  or  essence  of  the 
Godhead  and  manhood  of  Christ,  let  him  be  anathema.  For, 
when  we  say  that  the  only-begotten  Word  was  personally 
united,  we  do  not  say  that  a  confusion  of  the  natures  with 
each  other  has  taken  place ;  but  rather  we  think  that,  whilst 
each  nature  remains  what  it  is,  the  Word  has  been  united 
with  the  flesh.  Therefore,  also,  there  is  one  Christ,  God  and 
man,  the  same  who  is  of  one  substance  with  the  Father  as  to 
His  Godhead,  and  of  one  substance  with  us  as  to  His  manhood. 
For  the  Church  of  God  equally  condemns  and  anathematises 
those  who  separate  and  cut  asunder  the  mystery  of  the  divine 
economy  of  Christ,  and  those  who  confess  it.  (See  sees.  127, 
158,  193,  269.) 


Et  n,f  rrrpo<TKwelo~6ai,  ev  Svcrl  </>vcre<74  \eyei  rov  Xpicrrov, 
e£  ov  &vo  irpocrKWijaei^  ela-dyovrai,  IBia  ra)  6ea)  \6<yq),  Kal 
iSia  ru>  dvOpwrrto'  rf  ei  Tt9  eVt  dvai-peo-ei  rrjs  aapKO?,  rj 
€7rl  <rvy%v<T€i  T^?  dforyros  Kal  TT)<?  dv0pa>Tr6rr)ro<>,  77  fjbiav 
(f>v(Tiv  rfjovv  ovaiav  rwv  avveXdovrwv  reparevoiievos,  ovrw 
TrpoffKVvel  rov  Xpiarbv,  d\\'  ov^l  /j,ia  TrpocrKvvija-ei  rov  Oeov 
\6yov  aapKwOevra  fj,era  rr)s'  i'Sta?  avrov  aapKos  TrpocrKVvfl, 
KaOdtrep  rj  rov  deov  6KK\ij<Tia  TrapeXafiev  e^  upXW  °  TOiovros 
dvddefia  earco. 

If  anyone  says  that  Christ  is  to  be  worshipped  in  two 
natures,  by  which  two  kinds  of  worship  are  introduced,  the 
one  for  God  the  Word,  the  other  for  the  man ;  or  if  anyone, 
by  taking  away  the  flesh,  or  by  confusion  of  the  Godhead  and 
manhood,  or  preserving  only  one  nature  or  essence  of  those 


which  are  united,  thus  worships  Christ,  and  does  not  worship 
God  made  flesh  together  with  His  flesh  with  one  worship,  as 
the  Church  of  God  received  from  the  beginning, — let  him  be 


Ei    TIS    oi>%    6/jLO\oyel,   rov    ea-ravpmfievov    <rapKL    tcvptov 
'Ivjaovv    Xpurrov   elvcu   6eov    d\r)6wov,   teal    Kvptov   rrj<i 
teal  eva  Trjs  ay  las  rpidSos'  o  TOIOVTOS  avdBefia  ecrTtw. 
If  anyone  does  not  confess  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
crucified  in  the  flesh  is  true  God,  and  Lord  of  glory,  and  one 
of  the  Holy  Trinity,  let  him  be  anathema. 


Ei  Tt?  fir)  dvaOefiari&i,  "Apeiov,  'Evvo/jiiov,  MaiceSoviov, 
'Airo\\ivdpiov,  Neo-ropiov,  'Ewv%ea,  Kal  'flpiyevrjv,  //.era  TCOV 
daeftwv  avrwv  trvyy  pa/Andrew,  Kal  TOU?  aXXou?  irdvra^ 
alperiKoix;  Toy?  KaraKpi6evra<;  Kal  dvaQeparicrdevTas  viro 
rfjs  a<ytas  Kado\tKrj<;  Kal  dTrocrToXiKfjs  eKKXrjcrlas,  Kal  rwv 
Trpoeiprjfievwv  dylwv  Tecrcrdpaiv  (rvvoSwv,  Kal  roO?  ra  o/j.oia 
TWV  irpoeiprifjievwv  aiperiKwv  <bpovr)(ravTa<$  fj  (frpovovvras,  Kal 


If  anyone  does  not  anathematise  Arius,  Eunomius, 
Macedonius,  Apollinaris,  Nestorius,  Eutyches,  and  Origen, 
together  with  their  impious  writings,  and  all  other  heretics 
condemned  and  anathematised  by  the  Catholic  and  Apostolic 
Church  and  by  the  four  holy  Synods  already  mentioned, 
together  with  those  who  have  been  or  are  of  the  same  mind 
with  the  heretics  mentioned,  and  who  remain  till  the  end  in 
their  impiety,  let  him  be  anathema. 

Halloix,  Garnier,  Basnage,  Walch  and  others  suppose, 
and  Vincenzi  maintains  with  great  zeal,  that  the  name  of 
Origen  is  a  later  insertion  in  this  anathematism,  because  (a) 
Theodore  Ascidas,  the  Origenist,  was  one  of  the  most 
influential  members  of  the  Synod,  and  would  certainly  have 
prevented  a  condemnation  of  Origen  ;  further,  (b)  because  in 
this  anathematism  only  such  heretics  would  be  named  as  had 

EIGHTH  AND  LAST  SESSION,  JUNE  2,  553.  337 

been  condemned  by  one  of  the  first  four  (Ecumenical  Synods, 
which  was  not  the  case  with  Origen ;  (c)  because  this  anathe- 
matism  is  identical  with  the  tenth  in  the  opciXoyia  of  the 
Emperor  (sec.  263),  but  in  the  latter  the  name  of  Origen  is 
lacking ;  and,  finally,  (d)  because  Origen  does  not  belong  to  the 
group  of  heretics  to  whom  this  anathematism  refers.  His 
errors  were  quite  different.1 

All  these  considerations  seem  to  me  of  insufficient  strength, 
on  mere  conjecture,  to  make  an  alteration  in  the  text,  and 
arbitrarily  to  remove  the  name  of  Origen.  As  regards  the 
objection  in  connection  with  Theodore  Ascidas,  it  is  known 
that  the  latter  had  already  pronounced  a  formal  anathema  on 
Origen,  and  certainly  he  did  the  same  this  time,  if  the  Emperor 
wished  it  or  if  it  seemed  advisable.  The  second  and  fourth 
objections  have  little  weight.  In  regard  to  the  third  (c),  it  is 
quite  possible  that  either  the  Emperor  subsequently  went 
further  than  in  his  6/j,o\.oyia,  or  that  the  bishops  at  the  fifth 
Synod,  of  their  own  accord,  added  Origen,  led  on  perhaps  by 
one  or  another  anti-Origenist  of  their  number.  What,  how- 
ever, chiefly  determines  us  to  the  retention  of  the  text  is — 
(a)  that  the  copy  of  the  synodal  Acts  extant  in  the  Roman 
archives,  which  has  the  highest  credibility,  and  was  probably 
prepared  for  Vigilius  himself,  contains  the  name  of  Origen  in 
the  eleventh  anathematism;2  and  (&)  that  the  monks  of  the 
new  Laura  in  Palestine,  who  are  known  to  have  been  zealous 
Origenists,  withdrew  Church  communion  from  the  bishops  of 
Palestine  after  these  had  subscribed  the  Acts  of  the  fifth 
Synod.3  In  the  anathema  on  the  three  chapters  these 
Origenists  could  find  as  little  ground  for  such  a  rupture  as 
their  friend  and  former  colleague  Ascidas :  it  could  only  be  by 
the  Synod  attacking  their  darling  Origen.  (c)  Finally,  only  on 
the  ground  that  the  name  of  Origen  really  stood  in  the 
eleventh  anathematism,  can  we  explain  the  widely-circulated 
ancient  rumour  that  our  Synod  anathematised  Origen  and 
the  Origenists.  (See  sec.  255  and  267.) 

1  Walch,   Ketzerhist.   Bd.   viii.   S.   284  ff.  ;  Al.   Vincenzi.   in  S.    Oregorii 
Nysseni  et  Origenis  Scripta,  etc.     (See  sec.  267.) 
*  Noris,  I.e.  t.  i.  pp.  643,  642,  638  sqq. 

8  Cyrill.  Scythopol.,  Vita  Sabse,  c.  90.     (See  sees.  267  and  275.) 
IV.  22 



EL  n<i  dvriTTOieirai  OeoScapov  rov  d<re/3ovs,  rov  Mo-fyovea- 
rias,  rov  ei7roWo9,  aXXop  elvai  rov  6ebv  \6yov  teal  uXXoy  rov 
Xpiffrbv  vrro  rraBwv  ^v^rj^  Kal  rwv  rfjs  <rapKo<s 
real  ru>v  ^eipovcav  Kara  piKpov 

r)<$  epycav  (3e\ri(00€vra,  Kal  eic  iro\ireia<; 
fj,ov  Karaardvra,  009  tyiXbv  avOpwrrov  /3a7rri(r0fjvai  elf  ovo/jua 
7TOT/30?,  Kal  vlov,  Kal  ajiou  TTvevfMaros,  Kal  8ia  rov 
paros  rrjv  %dpiv  rov  ayiov  rrvevfiaro<j  Xdftew,  Kal 
d^cwBrjvat,  Kal  /car'  Icrorrjra  /3acri\t,Krj<$  eiKovos  els  rrpoawrcov 
rov  0eov  \6yov  rrpocrKweicrOai,  /cat  pera  rrjv  dvdcrracriv 
arperrrov  rat?  eWo/at?,  Kal  dvafidpTTjrov  rravre\5)<;  yeve<T0ai' 
Kal  rr<i\w  eiprjKoros  rov  avrov  ao~e(Bov<$  OeoSwpov,  rrjv  evwo~w 
rov  Oeov  \6yov  TT^O?  rov  Xpiarov  roiavrrjv  jeyevfja'dai,  olav  o 
d7ro<rToXo9  eVt  dv&pbs  Kal  yvvaiKO*;'  "  eaovrai  01  &vo  elf 
aapKa  fAiav"  Kal  Trpbs  rats  a\Xat9  dvapiOfjiijrois  avrov  /S\acr- 
(jyrj/Aiais  ro\[iri<Tavro<;  elrreiv,  ori  pera  rrjv  dvdcrrac'iv  eyLK^utr^aa? 
o  Kvpios  TOi9  /ia^rafc?,  Kal  elrrwv"  "  Adftere  Trvevfia  aytov," 
ovoeScoKev  avrois  irvevfjia  ayiov,  aXXa  cr^ijfjiari,  \iovov  eve<f)va''r]<r€' 
OVTO9  8e  Kal  rrjv  6/1.0X07 /ay  Q&V^,  "J"7)^  ^^  Tf}  ^^Xa^^o-et  rwv 
'Xeipwv  Kal  7^9  7rXev/aa9  rov  Kvpiov  fiera  rr)v  dvda-raa-iv,  TO 
"  6  Kvpios  fj,ov  Kal  6  0eo9  JJLOV  "  elire,  fir]  elprj^Bai  rrepl  rov 
Xpivrov  rrapa  rov  Scapa,  aXX'  eirl  ra>  TrapaSo^tp  rij<;  dvacr- 
Tao-ea)9  eKirXayevra  rov  Swfiav  vfj,vfjaai  rov  Oeov,  rov  eyeipavra 
rov  Xpterov  TO  8e  %etpov,  Kal  ev  ry  rwv  rrpd^ewv  rwv 
yevofievrj  Trap1  avrov  orjdev  epfjiiyveia,  (rvjKpivcav  6 
Sa)po<i  rov  Xpi&rbv  H\drwvi,  Kal  Mavi%ai(a,  Kal 
'EiriKovpm,  Kal  MapKiwvi,  \eyei  on,  wvrrep  eKeivwv  e/cao-TO9 
evpdfievo^  olKelov  Soyfia,  rovs  avr<p  fiaOrjrevcravras  rrerroLrjKe 
Ka\ei<T0at  II\ara)viKov<;,  Kal  Mavi%a£ov<;,  Kal  'EirtKovpeiov*;,  Kal 
MapKiovia-rds,  rov  opoiov  rporrov  Kal  rov  Xpicrrov  evpafievov 
Soyfia,  ej;  avrov  xpta-riavovs  Ka\elcr6ai'  El  T49  roivvv 
dvnrroielrai.  rov  elprjftevov  a<Tepe<rrdrov  OeoScapov  Kal  rfav 
d<ref3<av  avrov  airfypa^drwv,  ev  o?9  Tao-  Te  elpr)fieva<t  Kal 
aXXa9  dvapi0/j,rjrovs  j3\acr(f)i]fji,ia<}  e^e^ee  Kara  rov  /j,e<yd\ov 
6eov  KOI  <r(arf)po<;  rjfjiwv  'J^o-oO  Xpiarov'  aXXa  firj  dvad 
avrov  Kal  ra  da-ejSfi  avrov  <TvyypdfjL/j,ara,  Kal  rrdvras 
8e%ofji,evov<i  r}  Kal  eK^iKovvra^  avrov,  r)  Xeyoi/ra?,  op0oS6i~fi}s 

EIGHTH  AND  LAST  SESSION,  JUNE  2,  553.  339 

avrov  €K0€(r0ai,  Kal  roi»9  ypd-^ravra^  inrep  avrov  teal  rwv 
curefttav  avTov  crvyypafjifjLdTGov,  /cal  rot)?  ra  o/j,oia  (frpovovvras 
•f)  (j>povrjo-avra<{  Trwirore,  Kal  t^e^pi,  reXou?  efLfielvavras  rfj 
ToiavTy  alp&rei'  avdOepa  ea-ro). 

If  anyone  defends  the  impious  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia, 
who  says  (a)  God  the  Word  is  one,  and  another  is  Christ  who 
was  troubled  with  sufferings  of  the  soul  and  desires  of  the 
flesh,  and  who  by  degrees  raised  himself  from  that  which  was 
more  imperfect,  and  by  progress  in  good  works  and  by  his 
way  of  life  became  blameless ;  and  further,  that  as  mere  man 
he  was  baptized  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  through  baptism  received  the 
grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  was  deemed  worthy  of  sonship, 
and  was  worshipped  with  reference  to  the  person  of  God  the 
Word,  like  the  image  of  an  emperor,  and  that  (only)  after  the 
resurrection  he  became  unchangeable   in   his   thoughts   and 
completely    sinless ;    and    (&)    again,  as    the    same    impious 
Theodore  says,  the  union  of  God  the  Word  with  Christ  was 
of  such  a  nature  as  the  apostle  says  there  is  between  man 
and  wife :  "  they  two  shall  be  one  flesh " ;  and   (c)  among 
other  blasphemies,  dared  to  say  that,  when  the  Lord,  after 
the     resurrection,    breathed    upon    His     disciples,    saying, 
"  Receive  the  Holy  Ghost,"  He  did  not  give  them  the  Holy 
Ghost,  but  only  breathed  upon  them  as  a  sign ;  (d)  and  again, 
that  the  confession  of  Thomas,  on  touching  the  hands  and 
the  side  of  the  Lord  after  the  resurrection,  "  My  Lord  and 
my  God,"  was  not  spoken  concerning  Christ  by  Thomas,  but 
that,  astonished  at  the  miracle  of  the  resurrection,  Thomas 
praised  God  who  raised  Christ ;  (e)  and  what  is  still  worse, 
in  his  exposition  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  Theodore  com- 
pares Christ  with  Plato,  Manichaeus,  Epicurus,  and  Marcion, 
and  says  that,  as  each  of  these  devised  his  own  doctrine  and 
gave  to  his  disciples  the    name   of  Platonists,  Manichaeans, 
Epicureans,    and    Marcionists,    in    the    same    manner,   when 
Christ  also  devised  a  doctrine,  after  Him  they  were  called 
Christians. — If   anyone,   then,  defends   the  forenamed   most 
impious   Theodore   and   his   impious  writings,  in    which    he 
poured  out  the   above-mentioned  and  other  countless  blas- 
phemies against  the  great  God,  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  and 


does  not  anathematise  him  and  his  impious  writings,  and  all 
who  adhere  to  him,  or  defend  him,  or  say  that  he  has  given 
an  orthodox  interpretation,  or  who  have  written  in  defence  of 
him  and  his  impious  writings ;  and  who  think  or  have  ever 
thought  the  same,  and  remained  to  the  end  in  this  heresy, — 
let  him  be  anathema. 


Ei  Tt<?  dvrnroieirai  rwv  dazftutv  crvyypa/AudTav  SeoSiopirov, 
r&v  Kara  rf)<}  d\t)6ov<;  Trto-reco?,  KOI  T^<?  eV  '.E</>eo-&>  TTpwrt]^  Kai 
dyias  (rvvoSov,  Kai  rov  ev  dyiois  Kvpi\\ov,  Kai  rS)v  i/3'  avrov 
K€(f)a\aio)v,  Kai  irdvrwv  &v  (rvveypd-fyaro  vTrep  Seo&aipov  Kai 
Nea-ropiov,  r&v  Sva-crefiwv,  feat  virep  aXkav  rwv  rd  avrd  TO?? 
OeoBatpy  Kai  Nearopiw  <j)povovvTa>i>,  Kai  Se^o- 
aurot»5  Kai  rrjv  avrwv  d<ref3ei,av,  Kai  Si  avrtov  acre/Set? 
/caXet  rou?  rf)<>  eKK\T]a-id<f  StSacr/caXou?,  TOW?  Ka&  VTroaraa-iv 
rrjv  evwcriv  rov  Oeov  \6yov  <ppovovvra<>  Kai  6ao\oyovvTa<t' 
Kai  ei'jrep  OVK  dvaBeaaTi^et,  rd  eipyueva  daeftrj  o-vyypduuaTa, 
Kai  Tou?  TO,  ofAOia  TOVTO*?  <j>povija-avTa<;  rj  (f>povovvra<f,  Kai 
Traz/Ta?  Be  TOV$  rypdtyavTas  Kara  rrj?  op8f)<;  iriareax;,  r)  rov 
ev  d<yioi<;  Kvpi\\ov,  Kai  rwv  Sw&eKa  avrov  Ke<J3a\ai<av,  Kai  ev 
roiavrrj  dcre{3ei,a  TeXeuT^crai/To?'  o  TOiovTO?  dvddeua  earw. 

If  anyone  defends  the  impious  writings  of  Theodoret 
which  are  directed  against  the  true  faith,  and  against  the 
first  and  holy  Synod  of  Ephesus,  and  against  the  holy  Cyril 
and  his  twelve  chapters,  and  (defends)  all  that  he  wrote  in 
defence  of  Theodore  and  Nestorius,  the  impious  ones,  and 
others  who  think  the  like  with  those  named,  with  Theodore 
and  Nestorius,  and  receive  them  and  their  impiety,  and  for 
their  sakes  calls  the  teachers  of  the  Church  impious,  who 
maintain  and  confess  the  hypostatic  union  of  God  the  Word ; 
and  if  he  does  not  anathematise  the  impious  writings  named, 
and  those  who  thought  and  think  the  like,  and  all  who  have 
written  against  the  true  faith  or  the  holy  Cyril  and  his 
twelve  chapters,  and  have  persevered  in  such  impiety, — let 
him  be  anathema. 


Ei  Ti?  dvTnroieirai  TT}<?  eVto-ToX^?  rfy  'h.eyo/j.evr)*;  Trapd  "I/Sa 

EIGHTH  AND  LAST  SESSION,  JUNE  2,  553.  341 

yeypd<f)0at  7rpo9  Mdprjv  rov  Hep^v,  rijs  apvovfjievys  flfo  rov 
0eov  \6yov  etc  rijs  dyias  OeoroKov  KOI  denraOevov  Maputo 
aapKwdevra  dvOpwirov  yeyevrjcrdai,  \e<yovo''r)<>  8e  i/rt\oj/  avd- 
pwrrov  eg  avrfjs  yevijdijvai,  ov  vacv  diroKa\el,  0)9  d\\ov  elvat, 
rov  6eov  \6yov  ical  a\\ov  rov  avOpwrov'  KOI  rov  ev  dyiois 
Kvpt\\ov  rrjv  opdrjv  rwv  Xpwrravwv  Tri&riv  Krjpv^avra  Bta- 
a>9  aipenicov,  feat  ofioia)?  ' Atro\\LvapL(f>  ra>  8v<r<Te8ei 
'  Kol  /Ae/x,0oyu,ei/^9  rrjv  ev  'Etyecrq)  Trpwrrjv  dylav 
crvvo'oov,  a>9  %<y/Jt5  tcpicrecos  /cat  £r)rr)(rea><;  Necrropiov  /ca6e- 
\ovaav  Kal  rd  ScoSeica  K€(j>d\aia  rov  ev  dyiois  Kvpi\\ov 
daeftf]  Kal  evavrla  rfj  opdfj  Tricrret  drroicakel  rj  avrrj  daeftrjs 
e7ricrro\r),  teal  efcSucei  OeoSapov  teal  Ne<rr6piov  Kal  rd  acre/Si] 
avrwv  Soy/juara  Kal  o-vyypdfifwra'  et  Tt9  roivvv  r^ 

avriTroieirai,  Kal  p,r)  dvadepari^ei  avrrjv  Kal 
avrrjs,  xal  \eyovras  avrrjv  opOrjv  elvai,  TJ 
aur^9,  Kal  >ypdtyavras  Kal  ypdfovras  vrrep  avrrjf  rj  rwv  rrepi- 
€%ofj,evci)v  avry  d<re/3eifov,  Kal  ro\fj,wvras  ravryv  eK^iKetv,  rj  T«9 
rrepi,e'xpn>eva<i  avrfj  dffefielas  ovofian  r&v  dyiwv  irareprnv, 
rj  rrjs  d<yia<?  ev  Xa\Krj$6vi,  <rvvooov,  Kal  rovrois  ^XP1'  T^ov<> 
e/jifj,€ivavra<;'  6  roiovros  dvddefia  eara). 

If  anyone  defends  the  letter  which  Ibas  is  said  to  have 
written  to  Maris  the  Persian,  in  which  it  is  denied  that  God 
the  Word  became  flesh  and  man  of  the  holy  Godbearer  and 
ever-virgin  Mary,  and  in  which  it  is  maintained  that  he  was 
born  of  her  a  mere  man,  called  the  temple ;  and  that  God  the 
Word  is  one  and  the  man  is  another ;  and  in  which  the  holy 
Cyril  who  proclaimed  the  true  faith  of  Christ  is  accused  as  a 
heretic,  and  as  if  he  had  written  the  same  as  the  impious 
Apollinaris ;  and  in  which  the  first  holy  Synod  of  Ephesus 
is  censured,  as  though  it  had  condemned  Nestorius  without 
examination  and  trial ;  and  the  twelve  chapters  of  the  holy 
Cyril  called  impious  and  opposed  to  the  true  faith,  and 
Theodore  and  Nestorius  and  their  impious  doctrines  and 
writings  defended ;  if  anyone  defends  the  letter  in  question, 
and  does  not  anathematise  it,  together  with  those  who  defend 
it,  and  say  that  it  is  right,  or  a  part  of  it,  and  who  have 
written  or  do  write  in  defence  of  it  or  of  the  impieties  con- 
tained in  it,  and  venture  to  defend  it  or  the  impieties  con- 
tained in  it  by  the  name  of  holy  Fathers  or  of  the  holy  Synod 


of  Chalcedon,  and  persevere  therein  to  the  end, — let  him  be 

In  the  appendix  to  these  fourteen  anathematisms,  the 
Synod  declares  that,  "  if  anyone  ventures  to  deliver,  or  to 
teach,  or  to  write  anything  in  opposition  to  our  pious  ordin- 
ances, if  he  is  bishop  or  cleric,  he  shall  lose  his  bishopric  or 
office ;  if  he  is  a  monk  or  layman,  he  shall  be  anathematised." 
All  the  bishops  present  subscribed,  the  Patriarch  Eutychius  of 
Constantinople  first,  altogether  164  members,  among  them 
eight  Africans.  It  is  nowhere  indicated  that  any  debates  took 
place  over  the  plan. 

That  the  fifteen  anathematisms  against  Origen,  ascribed  to 
the  fifth  Synod,  do  not  belong  to  it,  but  to  an  earlier  assembly, 
has  already  been  shown  in  sec.  257. 



SEC.  275.  Synod  at  Jerusalem,  A.D.  553.      The  Emperor 
endeavours  to  compel  the  recognition  of  the  Fifth  Synod. 

IT  is  beyond  question  that  the  Emperor  did  not  fail  solemnly 
to  confirm  the  decrees  of  the  Synod  in  a  special  edict. 
As,  however,  no  document  of  that  kind  has  come  down  to  us, 
Walch  supposed  (Bd.  viii.  S.  297)  that  such  an  edict  would 
be  superfluous,  and  would  therefore  not  be  issued,  especially  as 
Justinian,  in  his  earlier  edicts,  had  most  clearly  pronounced 
his  will  in  this  matter.  But  the  formal  order  and  the 
practice  of  the  Byzantine  Government  required  a  formal 
document  of  confirmation,  and  Zonaras  (til  18)  says,  in  his 
Annals :  "  The  Emperor  confirmed  what  the  holy  Fathers,  from 
love  to  God,  had  decreed."1  Besides  this,  we  learn  from 
Cyril  of  Scythopolis,  who  was  a  contemporary  of  our  Synod, 
that  the  Emperor  himself  sent  the  synodal  Acts  into  the 
provinces,  in  order  that  they  might  be  subscribed  by  the 
bishops  who  had  come  to  Constantinople. 

In  all  the  Greek  and  Oriental  parts  of  the  empire  this 
was  done  almost  without  any  opposition ;  and  the  same  Cyril 
speaks  (I.e.)  particularly  of  an  assembly  or  Synod  of  the 
bishops  of  Palestine  at  Jerusalem,  probably  A.D.  553,  which 
had  received  and  confirmed  with  hand  and  mouth  the  decrees 
of  the  fifth  Council  collectively.  Alexander  of  Abyla  alone 
had  spoken  against  it,  and  had  therefore  been  deposed.  Finally, 
Cyril  of  Scythopolis  speaks  also  of  the  monks  of  the  new 

1  Zonarae  Annales,  lib.  xiv.  c.  8,  ed.  Du  Cange,  Paris  1686  ;  t.  ii.  p.  68,  ed. 
Paris  ;  p.  53,  ed.  Venet. 



Laura  in  Palestine  who  had  now  broken  off  Church  com- 
munion with  the  bishops  of  I'alestine,  and  for  this  reason  had 
been  driven  from  the  country  by  the  imperial  general 
Anastasius  (A.D.  554).  We  have  already  referred  to  this 
passage  as  making  it  probable  that  the  name  of  Origen  was 
really  contained  in  the  eleventh  anathematism  of  the  fifth 
Synod  (sec.  274). 

Of  any  further  opposition  to  this  Synod  we  find  no  trace 
in  the  East ;  but  the  hope  was  not  fulfilled  which  the 
Emperor  had  cherished,  that  now  many  Monophysites  would 
unite  with  the  Church.  That  this  did  not  take  place  we  are 
told  most  distinctly  by  Leontius  of  Byzantium.1  It  was 
worse  in  the  West;  since  here  the  fifth  Synod,  instead  of 
reuniting  the  separatists  to  the  Church,  divided  the  orthodox 
among  themselves.  To  prevent  this,  the  Emperor,  for  the 
most  part,  employed  violent  measures,  and  sometimes  milder 
ones.  The  Eoman  deacon  Eusticus  and  the  African  Abbot 
Felix,  these  old  opponents  of  the  anathema  on  the  three 
chapters,  who  were  then  still  at  Constantinople,  published 
immediately  a  writing  against  the  decrees  of  the  fifth  Synod, 
but  were  immediately  banished,  together  with  their  friends,  to 
the  Thebaid  in  Egypt.  Bishop  Victor  of  Tununum,  who 
relates  this,  and  who  also  was  a  vehement  opponent  of  the 
fifth  Synod,  adds :  "  As  a  punishment  for  this  banishment, 
etc.,  the  city  of  Constantinople  was  immediately  afterwards 
visited  by  a  violent  earthquake  by  which  many  altars  were 
thrown  down."  2  Here  the  earthquake  appears  as  a  punish- 
ment for  the  reception  of  the  fifth  Synod ;  whilst  Cyril  of 
Scythopolis  (I.e.)  indicates  that  Bishop  Alexander  of  Abyla 
was  killed  by  that  earthquake  at  Constantinople  because  he 
refused  to  recognise  the  fifth  Synod. 

Further  on  Victor  of  Tununum  remarks  (ad  ann.  557) 
that  Abbot  Felix  was  banished  to  Sinope  and  there  died  A.D. 
557.3  Of  Facundus  of  Hermione,  the  greatest  of  all  the 

1  Leontius  Byzant.  De  sectis  Act.  vi.  in  the  Biblioth.  Patrum,  Lugdun.  t.  ix. 
p.  669  ;  Walch,  Ketzerhist.  Bd.  viii.  S.  315. 

2  Victor.  Tunun.  Chron.  ad  ann.  553,  in  Galland.  Biblioth.  Palrum,  t.  xii. 
p.  231. 

3  On  the  chronology  of  Victor  of  Tununum,  see  sec.  146  in  vol.  iii. 


defenders  of  the  three  chapters,  he  gives  us  here  no  informa- 
tion ;  but  we  see,  from  his  own  book  ad  Mocianum,  that,  at  an 
earlier  period,  so  long  as  the  nefandum  Judicatum,  as  he  calls 
it,  was  in  force,  and  thus  even  before  the  opening  of  the  fifth 
Synod,  he  had  betaken  himself  to  a  secret  hiding-place,  in 
order  to  escape  from  the  snares  of  his  enemies.1 

SEC.  276.  Pope  Vigilius  confirms  the  Fifth  Synod. 

It  is  probable  that  the  Pope  and  the  bishops  who  were 
faithful  to  him,  and  were  about  him  in  Constantinople,  suffered 
the  punishment  of  exile.2  That  the  Emperor  had  demanded, 
even  during  the  fifth  Synod,  that  the  name  of  Vigilius  should 
be  struck  from  the  diptychs,  we  have  already  seen ;  and  we 
found  it  probable  that  the  edict  in  reference  to  this  was 
published  generally  on  July  14,  553.  About  the  same  time 
occurred  what  Anastasius  and  the  author  of  the  additions  to 
the  Chronicle  of  Marcellinus  relate,  that  Vigilius  and  his 
clergy  were  banished  into  different  places,  and  that  they  had 
been  condemned  to  labour  in  the  mines.3  As  particular 
places  of  their  exile,  Anastasius  mentions  the  city  of  Gypsus  in 
Upper  Egypt,  and  Proconnesus,  an  island  in  the  Propontis.  But, 
he  proceeds,  after  the  imperial  general  Narses  had  freed  the 
city  of  Eome  from  the  Goths,  the  Roman  clergy  petitioned 
for  the  liberation  and  return  of  their  bishop  and  their 
colleagues,  and  the  Emperor  agreed.4 

The  liberation,  however,  was  dependent  upon  the  con- 
dition that  Vigilius  would  recognise  the  fifth  Synod ;  and  he 
did  so,  as  in  the  meantime  he  had  come  to  the  conviction, 
certainly  a  right  one,  that  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  was 
thereby  in  no  ways  infringed  upon.  Let  us  consider  only 
what  took  place  at  Chalcedon  and  at  Constantinople  in  the 
fifth  Synod.  In  the  first  place,  as  regards  Theodore  of  Mop- 
suestia,  there  could  be  here,  in  fact,  no  contradiction  between 

1  In  Galland.  I.e.  t.  xi.  pp.  811-816. 

2  Cardinal  Noris  (t.  i.  p.  669)  contests  this  without  adequate  reason.     So 
the  Ballerini,  I.e.  t.  iv.  p.  962. 

3  This  is  contested  by  Noris,  I.e.  p.  677. 

4  Anastasii  VilK  Pontif.  Roman,  sec.  107  sq.  t.  iii.  p.  290  sq. ;  ed.  Bianchini 
and  Marcellini,  Chronic,  in  Scaliger.  Thesaur.  temp.  p.  57. 


the  fourth  and  fifth  (Ecumenical  Synods,  since  the  former 
said  nothing  whatever  about  him.  To  say  that  one  who  was 
dead  must  not  be  anathematised,  however,  was  an  idle  con- 
tention, contradictory  to  history  and  to  the  nature  of  the 
case,  so  that  in  this  the  defenders  of  the  fifth  Council  had 
easy  work. 

More  plausible  was  the  objection  in  regard  to  Theodoret 
and  Ibas ;  but  this,  too,  was  easily  set  aside.  Theodoret  and 
Ibas  were  suspected  of  Nestorianism,  and  it  was  therefore 
demanded,  at  Chalcedon,  that  they  should  pronounce  anathema 
on  Nestorius  and  his  heresies.  They  did  so,  and  were  re- 
stored to  their  bishoprics.  But  by  this  means  no  approval 
was  expressed  on  their  earlier  proceedings  and  their  earlier 
writings,  particularly  on  what  they  had  done  before  the  union 
with  Cyril.  On  the  contrary,  the  demand  for  a  strict  and 
frank  anathema  on  Nestorius  (vol.  iii  sees.  195,  196)  was  a 
consequence  of  the  doubts  which  the  past  of  these  men 
instilled.  And  on  this  past  alone  did  the  fifth  Council 
pronounce  a  judgment,  without  in  the  least  contesting  the 
sentence  of  Chalcedon  and  the  restoration  of  the  two  men. 
They  did  at  Constantinople  what  they  could  have  done  at 
Chalcedon,  without  doing  anything  in  the  least  contradictory. 
Moreover,  the  judgment  of  the  fifth  Synod  was  objectively 
well  founded,  as  we  have  seen  (sec.  258),  and  the  most  that 
could  be  said  was  that  it  was  in  contradiction  with  the 
opinion  of  some  few  members  at  Chalcedon.  This  doubt 
also  disappeared  when  it  was  considered,  as  has  been  done 
above  (sec.  258),  that  the  letter,  from  one  point  of  view, 
might  be  a  testimony  that  Ibas  had,  in  the  ground  of  his 
heart,  no  heretical  opinions,  at  least  since  the  union ;  whilst 
to  others  it  appeared  in  a  more  favourable  light.  But  only 
few  then  made  these  distinctions  so  quietly.  The  enemies  of 
the  fifth  Synod  persisted  in  the  old  exaggerated  contention 
that  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  had  approved  of  the  letter  of 
Ibas,  and  the  like ;  whilst  the  others  thought  to  remove  all 
difficulties  by  the  assertion  (a)  that  Ibas  had  never  acknow- 
ledged the  letter  as  his,  and  had  rejected  it  at  Chalcedon ; 
and  (6)  that  those  few  supporters  at  Chalcedon,  who  seem  to 
have  commended  the  letter,  could  not  weigh  in  the  scale 


against  the  judgment  of  the  whole  Synod,  which  had 
demanded  from  Ibas  an  anathema  upon  all  Nestorianism, 
and  so  also  on  that  contained  in  the  letter  (sec.  270). 

This  style  of  argument  used  by  the  friends  of  the  fifth 
Synod  was  now  accepted  by  Vigilius  ;  but  he  went  a  good  deal 
further,  to  a  very  bold  argument,  as  we  see  particularly  from 
the  second  of  those  documents  which  we  have  now  to  consider. 

That  Pope  Vigilius  had  given  his  assent  to  the  fifth 
Synod  sometime  after  its  close,  has  long  been  known  from 
Evagrius  and  Photius,1  and  from  the  Acts  of  the  sixth 
CEcumenical  Synod,  eighteenth  session.  In  the  seventeenth 
century,  however,  Peter  de  Marca  and  Baluze  discovered  the 
two  edicts  in  which  the  Pope  expressed  this  assent.2  The 
first  of  these  documents,  discovered  by  Peter  de  Marca  in 
a  codex  in  the  Eoyal  Library  in  Paris,  is  addressed  to  the 
Patriarch  Eutychius  of  Constantinople,  and  dated  Decem- 
ber 8,  553.3  We  see  from  this  that  more  than  seven  months 
had  passed  since  the  end  of  the  Synod  when  Vigilius  arrived 
at  his  new  resolve.  Here  he  says :  "  The  enemy  of  the 
human  race,  who  sows  discord  everywhere,  had  separated 
him  from  his  colleagues,  the  bishops  assembled  in  Con- 
stantinople. But  Christ  had  removed  the  darkness  again 
from  his  spirit,  and  had  again  united  the  Church  of  the 
whole  world.  .  .  .  There  was  no  shame  in  confessing  and 

1  Evagrius,  Hist.  Eccles.  lib.  iv.  c.  38  ;  Photius,  De  Synodis,  iu  his  first 
letter  to  the  Bulgarian  Prince  Michael,  in  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  655  ;  Hardouin,  t.  v. 
p.  1471. 

•  They  are  reprinted  in  Mansi,  t.  ix.  pp.  414-420,  and  pp.  457-488;  Hardouin, 
t.  iii.  p.  213  sqq.  and  p.  217  sqq.  On  these  documents,  their  history  and 
genuineness,  cf.  Marca's  dissertation  on  the  first  of  them,  in  his  De  concordia 
sacerdotii  et  imperil,  in  the  appendix,  p.  207  sqq.,  ed.  Francof.  1708;  and 
in  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  419  sqq.  Further,  Noris,  De  Synodo  V.,  in  the  Ballerini 
edition  of  his  works,  t.  i.  p.  667  sq. ;  and  Walch,  Ketzerhist.  Bd.  viii.  S.  310. 
Gamier  (De  quinta  Synodo,  in  Schulze's  edition  of  the  works  of  Theodoret,  t. 
v.  p.  587)  endeavours  to  throw  suspicion  upon  the  first  of  these  two  papal 
documents  (he  could  not  do  so  with  the  second) ;  but  the  Ballerini  (in  Noris, 
Opp.  t.  iv.  p.  1042  sq.)  opposed  him,  and  recognised  the  genuineness  of  both 
these  newly  discovered  documents.  So  also  Pagi,  ad  aim.  554,  n.  4. 

3  Like  other  letters  of  Vigilius,  this  was  originally  composed  in  Latin,  and 
the  Greek,  which  alone  we  now  possess,  is  probably  the  official  translation  made 
at  the  very  first  for  the  Greeks.  The  Latin,  which  now  stands  beside  the  Greek, 
is  Marca's  own  version. 


recalling  a  previous  error ;  this  had  been  done  by  Augustine 
in  his  Retractations.  He,  too,  following  this  and  other 
examples,  had  never  ceased  to  institute  further  inquiries  on 
the  matter  of  the  three  chapters  in  the  writings  of  the 
Fathers.  Thus  he  had  found  that  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia 
had  taught  error,  and  therefore  had  been  opposed  in  the 
writings  of  the  Fathers  (here  he  inserts  several  heretical 
expressions  of  Theodore,  almost  verbally  taken  from  the 
twelfth  anathematism  of  the  Synod,  sec.  274).  The  whole 
Church  must  now  know  that  he  rightly  ordained  the  follow- 
ing :  We  condemn  and  anathematise,  together  with  all  the 
heretics  who  have  been  already  condemned  and  anathematised 
at  the  four  holy  Synods  and  by  the  Catholic  Church,  also 
Theodore,  formerly  bishop  of  Mopsuestia,  and  his  impious 
writings ;  also  that  which  Theodoret  impiously  wrote  against 
the  right  faith,  against  the  twelve  anathematisms  of  Cyril, 
against  the  first  Synod  of  Ephesus,  and  in  defence  of  Theodore 
and  Nestorius.  Moreover,  we  anathematise  and  condemn  also 
the  impious  letter,  etc.  (here  are  the  very  same  words  which 
the  Synod  employed  in  their  sentence,  sec.  274).  Finally, 
we  subject  to  the  same  anathema  all  who  believe  that  the 
three  chapters  referred  to  could  at  any  time  be  approved  or 
defended,  or  who  venture  to  oppose  the  present  anathema. 
Those,  on  the  contrary,  who  have  condemned,  or  do  condemn, 
the  three  chapters,  we  hold  for  brethren  and  fellow-priests. 
Whatever  we  ourselves  or  others  have  done  in  defence  of  the 
three  chapters  we  declare  invalid.  Far  be  it  from  anyone 
to  say  that  the  before-mentioned  blasphemies  (from  the  books 
of  Theodore  and  Theodoret,  etc.),  or  those  who  teach  the  like, 
have  been  approved  by  the  four  holy  Synods,  or  by  one  of 
them.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  well  known  that  no  one  who 
was  in  anyway  under  suspicion  was  received  by  the  Fathers 
named,  especially  by  the  holy  Synod  of  Chalcedon,  unless  he 
first  had  anathematised  the  said  blasphemies,  or  the  heresy  of 
which  he  was  suspected." l 

The  second  document,  discovered  by  Baluze  in  the  Colbert 
Library,  dated  February  23,  554,  is  in  Latin,  and  has  no 
superscription,  and  the  beginning  is  also  wanting.  It  bears 

1  Of.  on  tins  document,  Walch,  Kctzerhist.  Bd.  viii.  S.  103,  302,  321. 


the  title  "  Vigilii  Papse  Constitutum  de  damnatione  trium 
capituloruin "  (thus  the  second  Constitutum),  was  perhaps 
addressed  to  the  bishops  of  the  West,  and  at  great  length 
took  in  hand  to  set  aside  their  doubts  of  the  condemnation  of 
the  three  chapters.  After  a  repetition  of  the  confessions  of 
faith  from  the  Acts  of  Chalcedon,  etc.,  it  begins  with  the 
words :  "  After  putting  before  you  the  declaration  of  faith  of 
Chalcedon,  and  the  letter  of  Leo  on  the  true  faith,  and  you 
and  the  whole  Church  see  that  I  abide  by  this  faith,  I  hold 
it  necessary  also  to  discuss  the  matter  of  the  three  chapters, 
and  to  decide  it  by  provident  promulgation  of  the  sentence." 

Vigilius  next  relates  the  historical  facts  in  connection 
with  Ibas,  and  then  endeavours  to  show  that  the  letter  to 
Maris,  ascribed  to  him,  had  never  been  approved  by  the 
Synod  of  Chalcedon ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  that  its  contents 
stood  in  contradiction  to  the  teaching  of  the  Council.  But 
the  letter  was  only  falsely  ascribed  to  Ibas.  He  had  decidedly 
disavowed  it,  and  shown  that,  like  other  things,  it  had  been 
foisted  upon  him  by  the  Eutychians.1 

Here  Vigilius  evidently  goes  too  far,  and  maintains  more 
decidedly  than  other  friends  of  the  Synod  the  spuriousness 
of  the  letter  to  Maris,  although  in  the  Acts  of  the  Council 

1  In  particular,  Vigilius  brings  out — (a)  Ibas  declared  that  the  Eutychians 
foisted  spurious  writings  upon  him ;  (6)  he  declared  the  Nestorianising  doctrines 
with  which  his  accusers  reproached  him,  foreign  to  him,  and  yet  these  were 
similar  (?)  statements  to  those  in  the  letter  to  Maris  ;  (c)  if  Ibas  had  been  able 
to  invalidate  all  the  other  accusations  of  heretical  teachings,  yet  the  accusation 
would  of  necessity  have  remained  correct,  on  account  of  the  letter  alone,  if  he 
was  its  author  ;  (d)  the  anathema  on  Nestorius  and  his  teaching,  which  Ibas 
accepted,  contradicts  the  contents  of  the  letter  to  Maris  (?) ;  (e)  the  earlier 
Judices  at  Berytus  and  Tyre  said  that  Ibas  was  not  convicted  ;  but  he  would 
have  been  so  if  he  had  acknowledged  the  letter,  for  his  accusers  reproached  him 
there  exactly  (?)  with  that  which  the  letter  contains;  (/)  Ibas  himself  says 
that,  after  the  union,  he  no  longer  declared  Cyril  to  be  a  heretic  ;  but  the  letter 
was  written  after  the  union,  and  Cyril  is,  in  it,  called  a  heretic;  so  that  the 
letter  cannot  be  from  Ibas  (this  argument  is  invalid,  for  it  is  not  said  in  the 
letter  that  Cyril  is  a  heretic,  but  that  formerly  he  taught  Apollinarianism)  ; 
(#)  Ibas,  after  the  reading  of  the  letter  to  Maris,  demanded  that  now  the  letter 
of  the  clergy  of  Edessa  should  be  read,  in  order  to  show  that  that  letter  was  not 
from  him  (Vigilius  brings  this  into  the  Acts) ;  (A)  Ibas,  immediately  after  the 
reading  of  the  letter  to  Maris  at  Chalcedon,  said  :  "  Alienus  sum  ab  his,  quse 
mihi  illata  sunt "  ;  by  which  he  meant  the  letter  (not  the  accusations  in 


of  Chalcedon  the  letter  is  quite  distinctly  ascribed  to  Ibas 
(Concil.  Ohaked.  Sess.  x.,  in  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  242,  and 
Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  527);  and  Ibas,  at  and  after  its  reading, 
said  not  a  syllable  against  its  genuineness,  although  that 
would  have  been  very  much  in  his  favour.  But  Vigilius 
goes  still  further,  and  tries  to  show  that  even  those  testi- 
monies (votd)  of  the  papal  legates  at  Chalcedon,  and  of 
Bishop  Maximus  of  Antioch,  were  not  adduced  by  the 
defenders  of  the  three  chapters.  The  votum  of  the  papal 
envoy  ran :  "  Relecta  enirn  ejus  epistola  agnovimus,  eum 
(Ibam)  esse  Orthodoxum  " ;  but  by  this  epistola  ejus  we  must 
not  understand  the  letter  to  Maris,  but  the  letter  drawn  up 
by  the  clergy  of  Edessa  in  favour  of  Ibas.  This  was  read 
last  at  Chalcedon,  immediately  before  the  voting,  and  could 
be  called  the  epistola  of  Ibas,  since  Ibas  presented  this 
document  in  his  favour.  It  is  quite  customary  for  anyone 
to  say  of  the  documents  on  which  he  supports  his  cause : 
"  Those  are  my  documents." 

Even  the  testimony  of  Maximus,  which  points  still  more 
decisively  to  the  letter  to  Maris,  Vigilius  would  invalidate. 
On  this  he  says :  KOI  etc  rov  dvayvwcrOevros  Se  dvnypdfov 
Tr)?  eVto'ToX?}?,  rov  7rpo<rKOfj,io~6evro<;  irapa  rov  duriBitcov 
avrov,  op66SoJ;o<;  axfrdij  avrov  rj  vTrayopia,  i.e.  "  Even  from  the 
reading  of  the  copy,  the  letter  brought  forward  by  his 
opponent,  the  orthodoxy  of  his  meaning  was  seen."  As,  in 
fact,  the  opponent  of  Ibas  brought  forward  the  letter  to 
Maris  in  support  of  his  accusation,  but  had  willingly  passed 
over  in  silence  the  letter  of  the  clergy  of  Edessa  in  favour  of 
Ibas,  so  that  Ibas  had  to  demand  that  it  should  be  read ;  so 
it  is  probable  that  we  should  here  think  not  of  this,  but  of 
the  letter  to  Maris.  But  Vigilius  answered :  All  that  was 
read  at  Chalcedon  in  reference  to  Ibas  was  taken  from  the 
minutes  of  the  earlier  transactions  at  Tyre  and  Berytus. 
These  minutes  the  opponent  of  Ibas  had  brought  complete,  and 
therefore  it  could  be  said,  also  the  letter  of  the  Edessenes, 
although  possibly  kept  back  by  him,  yet  by  him  Trpostcofjuo-dev, 
since  he  had  actually  brought  it.  Here  Vigilius  attempted  a 
kind  of  argument  in  favour  of  the  fifth  Synod  which  none 
had  ventured  upon  before  him.  Much  more  timidily  had 


the  bishops  of  the  fifth  Synod  stepped  on  this  point  when 
they  said  "  the  voices  of  some  few  bishops  were  not  decisive  " 
(see  271);  and  again:  "Since  all  the  members  of  the  Synod 
of  Chalcedon  demanded  that  Ibas  should  anathematise 
Nestorius,  whom  that  letter  defended,  they  showed  that 
they  held  as  invalid  what  one  or  two  had  said  in  favour  of 
that  letter;  and  these,  too,  had  united  with  the  others." 
Indeed  Vigilius  himself  had  said  in  his  first  Constitutum : 
"  It  was  clear  that  the  legates  of  the  apostolic  see  regarded 
Ibas  as  orthodox  after  the  reading  of  his  letter  to  Maris,  and 
that  Maximus  of  Antioch  had  declared  that  from  this  letter  read 
the  catholic  confession  of  Ibas  was  clear ;  and  the  other  bishops 
had  not  only  not  contradicted,  but  evidently  had  agreed."  He 
now  maintained  the  direct  opposite  of  his  earlier  contention. 

He  further,  in  the  new  edict,  pronounces  a  full  anathema 
on  the  letter  in  question,  and  on  all  who  maintain  that  it 
was  declared  orthodox  by  anyone  at  Chalcedon ;  he  then 
proceeds  to  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  whom,  together  with  the 
writings  of  Theodoret  against  Cyril,  he  declares  worthy  of 
condemnation,  and  finally  closes  with  an  anathema  on  all  the 
three  chapters  together,  on  their  defenders,  and  on  everyone 
who  should  maintain  that  that  letter  was  declared  to  be 
orthodox  by  the  Synod  of  Chalcedon,  or  by  any  member  of  it.1 

SEC.  277.  Many  Westerns  refuse  to  recognise  the  Fifth  Synod. 

After  publishing  these  writings,  Vigilius  made  return 
from  Constantinople  to  Eome,  probably  in  the  summer  of 
554;  but  fell  sick  on  the  way,  in  Sicily,  of  pains  in  the 
stone,  and  died  at  Syracuse  towards  the  end  of  the  year  554, 
or  in  January  of  555.  His  body  was  conveyed  to  Eome, 
and,  as  Anastasius  relates,  was  entombed  in  the  Church  of 
S.  Marcellus  on  the  Salarian  Way.2  His  successor  was  his 
previous  deacon  Pelagius  I.  (from  April  555  to  March  560), 

1  Mansi,  t.  ix.  pp.  457-488  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  pp.  217-254. 

»  Cf.  Walch,  I.e.  S.  306  and  324.  On  the  year  of  the  deatli  of  Vigilius,  cf. 
Noris,  De  synodo  V.  in  the  Ballerini  edition  of  his  works,  t.  i.  pp.  668  and  673  ; 
and  Pagi,  ad  ann.  555,  n.  7.  Victor  of  Tuuunum  gives  the  year  of  the  return 
of  Vigilius  incorrectly  as  557. 


whom  we  have  seen  peculiarly  active  as  papal  representative 
in  Constantinople  at  the  anathematising  of  Origen.  He  had 
also  subscribed  the  Constitution  in  which  Vigilius  declared 
himself  for  the  three  chapters,  and  had  been  at  Constantinople 
in  the  train  of  the  Pope.  At  an  earlier  period,  moreover,  he 
seems  to  have  been  of  a  different  mind,  on  which  account 
Justinian  intended  to  raise  him  to  the  Eoman  see  in  place  of 
Vigilius,  if  Anastasius  tells  the  truth.1  The  Pope's  com- 
pliance, however,  altered  the  case.  But  Pelagius  came  under 
suspicion,  as  though  he  had  acted  in  a  faithless  manner 
towards  Vigilius,  and  occasioned  much  of  his  oppression  by 
the  Emperor,  on  which  account  most  of  the  bishops  of  Italy 
and  very  many  clergy  and  laity  of  Rome  withdrew  at  first 
from  his  Church  communion,  so  that  only  two  bishops  were 
present  at  his  consecration,  who  ordained  him  with  the 
assistance  of  a  priest.  He  therefore  found  it  necessary, 
immediately  on  his  entering  upon  his  office,  solemnly  to 
defend  and  purge  himself  in  S.  Peter's  Church  in  Rome.2 

In  spite  of  this,  that  both  Vigilius  and  his  successor 
recognised  the  fifth  (Ecumenical  Synod,  many  Westerns  still 
persisted  in  their  opposition.  Probably  about  this  time  a 
number  of  bishops  addressed  a  memorial  to  the  Emperor 
Justinian,  in  which  they  declared,  in  vigorous  language,  the 
condemnation  of  the  three  chapters  as  invalid,  and  said  that 
the  intention  had  been  thereby  to  give  satisfaction  to  the  Mono- 
physites.  To  which  province  these  bishops  belonged  is  not 
known,  as  their  memorial  itself  is  lost,  and  we  now  possess 
only  the  extensive  and  harsh  reply  of  the  Emperor,  which  has 
no  special  address,  which  was  discovered,  in  the  last  century, 
in  the  Medicean  Library  at  Florence.3  That  it  was  bishops 
from  whom  the  memorial  proceeded  we  see  from  the 
beginning  of  the  answer,  in  which  it  is  said  that  they  had 

1  Noris  (I.e.  p.  677)  attempts  to  show  that  it  was  later,  only  after  the  death 
of  Vigilius,  that  Pelagius  was  recalled  from  exile,  and  anathematised  the  three 
chapters.     But  Noris  has  Anastasius  against  him. 

2  Anastasii    VitK  Pontificum,   I.e.  sec.  109,  p.  292,  t.  iii.     Noris  (I.e.  p. 
677  sq.)  thinks  Pelagius  defended  himself,  not  against  the  suspicion  of  faith- 
lessness to  Vigilius,  hut  against  the  reproach  that  he  had  violated  orthodoxy 
by  condemning  the  three  chapters. 

3  Reprinted  by  Mansi,  t.  ix.  pp.  589-646  ;  wanting  in  H,ardouin. 


separated  themselves  from  the  other  bishops,  and  in  proud 
presumption  had  compared  themselves  with  the  apostles. 
The  Emperor  then  meets  all  their  doubts  as  to  the  anathema 
on  the  three  chapters,  and  shows  at  length  that  the  con- 
demnation of  them  was  fully  justified,  and  in  noway 
infringed  upon  the  Council  of  Chalcedon.  (Much  is  here 
borrowed  from  the  earlier  edict  of  the  Emperor,  the  6/jLo\oy£a 
TT/o-Tecw?.)  The  Emperor,  further,  finds  much  in  the  memorial 
of  the  bishops  which  is  even  directly  heretical,  and  especially 
finds  fault  with  the  statement  that  the  anathematisms  of 
Cyril  are  obscure,  and  first  received  the  true  light  through 
the  letter  of  Ibas.  The  Emperor  speaks  also  of  an  impious 
teacher,  who  misleads  the  authors  of  the  memorial,  and  has 
circulated  heresy  in  a  locality  where  previously  no  heretic 
had  set  his  foot.  If,  however,  he  concludes,  the  bishops,  in 
their  memorial,  gave  him  counsels  as  to  what  answers  he 
should  give  to  the  Egyptians  (Egypt  was  the  chief  seat  of 
the  Monophysites),  they  should  before  everything  reform 
themselves  ;  but  to  satisfy  them,  the  Emperor  would  have  to 
make  the  Egyptians  into